LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class      lb  /W 


The  Article  in  Theocritus 


BY 


WINFRED  GEORGE  LEUTNER 


3  2E>ts#matioit 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE    BOARD  OP    UNIVERSITY    STUDIES  OF    THE    JOHNS  HOPKINS    UNIVERSITY 

IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE    REQUIREMENTS  POR  THE  DEOREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


!7Y 


BALTIMORE 

H. FURST   COMPANY 
1907 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/articleintheocriOOIeutrich 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


Page. 
Bibliography 5 

Preface 9 

Introduction 11 

A.  Substantive  Article 24 

i.       Demonstrative 24 

ir.     Relative 30 

B.  Adjective  Article 31 

1.  With  objects  present  to  the  senses 31 

2.  "  "      previously  mentioned 32 

3.  "  "      present  to  the  mind 34 

4.  "  "      marked  as  customary,  proper,  etc 35 

5.  With  possessive  value 35 

0.    With  proper  names 38 

a.  Names  of  persons 38 

b.  "       "  divinities 45 

Oaths 47 

c.  Names  of  peoples  in  the  plural 47 

d.  "      "cities 47 

e.  "      "rivers.. 48 

f.  "      "  mountains  and  promontories 48 

g.  M      "islands 48 

h.  "       "  countries 48 

i.  "      "seas 48 

k.  "      "  vessels  and  statues 48 

1.  "      "festivals 49 

m.         "      "constellations 49 

n.  "      "  winds 49 

o.     Natural  divisions  of  time 49 

p.      Xp6vos,  GtiXacrcra,  yrj 50 

r.      BeuriXetfs,  fiao-lXeia 50 

7.  The  generic  article 50 

8.  With  substantivized  words  and  phrases 53 

a.  Adjectives 53 

b.  Participles 54 

3 


Table  of  Contents. 

c.  Adverbs 56 

d.  Prepositional  phrases 57 

e.  Infinitives 57 

9.    With  appositive  nouns 58 

10.  With  the  predicate 60 

11.  With  nouns  accompanied  by  attributive  adjectives 61 

12.  Predicative  position 65 

13.  In  genitive  combinations 67 

14.  With  possessives  and  genitives  of  personal  and  reflexive  pronouns.  70 

15.  With  interrogatives 73 

16.  With  <S\Xos  and  trepos 73 

17.  With  ^Karros 74 

18.  With  e/carepos,  #/a0w,  and  ap-cpbrepos 74 

19.  With  ovtos,  85e,  ttjpos,  and  ixeivos 74 

20.  With  demonstrative  adjectives ...  77 

21.  With  atrds 77 

22.  With  iras,  d-rras,  a-tip-iras,  and  6\os 78 

23.  With  numerals 79 

24.  With  superlatives 79 

25.  With  comparatives 80 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


General  Grammatical  Works. 

Bernhardy,  G.,  Wissenschaftliclie  Syntax  der  griechischen  Sprache. 

Berlin,  1829. 
Brugmann,  K.,  Griechische   Gram m at ik-M tillers   Handbuch,  n1, 

3.  Ed.  1900. 
Buttmann,  A.,  Des  Apollonios  Dyskolos  vier  Buecher  ueber  die 

Syntax.     Berlin,  1877. 
Krueger,    K.    W.,    Historisch-philologische    Studieri,    Vol.    n. 

Berlin,  1851. 
Krueger-Poekel,  Griechische  Sprachlehre.     Leipzig,  1875-1894. 

(Referred  to  simply  as  Krueger.) 
Kuehner-Gerth,  Ausfiihrliche  Grammatik  der  griechischen  Sprache. 

Leipzig,  1898.     (Referred  to  simply  as  Kuehner.) 
Madvig,  J.  N.,  Syntax  of  the  Greek  Language.     London,  1873. 
Monro,  D.  B.,  Homeric  Grammar.     Oxford,  1891. 
Schoemann,  G.  F.,  Die  Lehre  von  den  Redetheilen.    Berlin,  1862. 
Vogrinz,  G.,  Grammatik   des    Homerischen    Dialektes.     Pader- 

born,  1889. 

Special  Works  Dealing  with  the  Article. 

Ameis,  C.,  Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels  in  den  griechischen 

Bukolikern.     Muehlhausen,  1846. 
Blass,  Fr.,  Rheinisches  Museum  xliv  (1889),  101  ff.    (Reviewed 

Amer.  Jour.  Pkil.,  xi,  107.) 
Brugmann,  K.,  Die  Demonstrativpronomina  in  den  Indogermani- 

schen  Sprachen,  Abhandl.  der  Koenigl.  Saechsischen  Gesettsch. 

d.  Wiss.  xxii,  No.  vi.     Leipzig,  1904. 
Dornseiffen,  I.,  De  articulo  apud  Graecos  eiusque  usu  in  praedi- 

cato.     Amsterdam,  1856. 

5 


6  Bibliography. 

Eichhorst,  O.,  Die  Lehre  des  Apollonius  Dyscolus  vom  Artikel. 
Philologus,  xxxvm,  399  ff. 

Die  Lehre  des  Apollonius  Dyscolus  vom  articulus  postposi- 
tive.    Wehlau,  1882. 

Foerstemann,  H.,  Bemerkuugen  ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels 
bei  Homer.     Magdeburg,  1861. 

Fuller,  A.  L.,  De  articuli  in  antiquis  Graecis  comoediis  usu. 
Leipzig,  1888. 

Gildersleeve,  B.  L.,  Amer.  Jour,  of  Phil.,  in  various  places  as 
cited  below. 

Herbst,  L.,  Philologus,  xxxviii,  502  ff. ;  xl,  374  ff. 

Kallenberg,  H.,  Studien  ueber  den  griechischen  Artikel.  I — bei 
Namen  von  Laendern,  Staedten  und  Meeren  in  der  griechi- 
schen Prosa.  Philol.  xlix,  515  ff.  n. — bei  Flussnamen, 
bei  Gebirgsnamen.  Berlin  Pr.,  1891.  Der  Artikel  bei  7ra?, 
ovtos,  iKeivos  und  oBe  in  Herodot.  Jahresh.  des  Philol. 
Vereins  zu  Berlin,  1897,  xxin,  204  ft'. 

Middleton,  T.  F.,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article,  etc.  4th  ed. 
by  Rose.     London,  1841. 

Mildeu,  A.  W.,  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 
J.  H.  U.  dissertation,  1900. 

Proksch,  A.,  Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels  insbesondere  beim 
Praedikat.     Philol.  XL,  Iff. 

Schildener,  H.,  Der  griechische  Artikel.  Jahns  Jahrb.,  1851. 
Suppl.,  xvn,  101  ff. 

Schmidt,  C,  De  articulo  in  nominibus  propriis  apud  Atticos 
scriptores  pedestres.     Kiel,  1890. 

Stein,  R.,  De  articuli  apud  Pindarum  usu.     Breslau,  1868. 

Uckermann,  "W.,  Ueber  den  Artikel  bei  Eigennamen  in  den 
Komoedien  des  Aristophanes.     Berlin,  1892. 

Volker,  F.,  Syntax  der  griechischen  Papyri,  I.  Der  Artikel. 
Munster  (Program)  1903. 

Zucker,  A.,  Beobachtuugen  ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels 
bei  Personen namen  in  Xen  options  Anabasis.  Nuernberg, 
1899. 


Bibliography.  7 

Editions  of  Theocritus. 

Ahrens,  H.  L.,  Theocritus,  Bion,  Moschus.     I.  Text,  n.  Scholia. 

Leipzig,  1855. 
Theocritus,  Bion,  Moschus  ;   Ed.  minor,  Teubner.     Leipzig, 

1902. 
Cholmeley,  R.  J.,  The  Idylls  of  Theocritus,  with  English  notes, 

etc.     London,  1901. 
Fritzsche,    Ad.    Th.    Arm.,    Theocriti    Idyllia.      Editio    altera 

parabilior.     Leipzig,  1870. 
Theokrits  Gedichte,  2.  ed.,  1869;    3.  ed.,  by  Ed.  Hiller. 

Leipzig,  1881. 
Hartung,  J.  A.,  Theokrit,  Bion    und   Moschus,   griechisch    mit 

metrischer  Uebersetzung.     Leipzig,  1858. 
Kiessling,  Th.,  Theocritus,  Bion  et  Moschus,  Graece  et  Latine. 

London,  1829. 
Lang,  A.,  Theocritus,  Bion  and  Moschus.     Rendered  into  English 

prose.     London,  1901. 
Meineke,  Aug.,  Theocritus,  Bion   et   Moschus.     3.  ed.,  Berlin, 

1856. 
Snow,  H.,  The  Idylls  and  Epigrams  of  Theocritus.    Oxford,  1873. 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  Bucolici  Graeci.     Oxford. 
Wuestemann,  E.  F.,  Theocriti  Reliquiae.     Gotha,  1830. 
Ziegler,  Chr.,  Theocriti  Carmina.     3.  ed.,  Tuebingen,  1879. 

Miscellanies. 

Hiller,  Ed.,  Beitraege  zur  Textgeschichte  der  griechischen 
Bukoliker.     Leipzig,  1888. 

Legrand,  Ph.  E.,  Etude  sur  Theocrite.     Paris,  1898. 

Rumpel,  J.,  Lexicon  Theocriteum.     Leipzig,  1877. 

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  U.  v.,  Die  Textgeschichte  der  griechi- 
schen Bukoliker.     Berlin,  1906. 

Ziegler,  Chr.,  Codicis  Ambrosiani  222.  Scholia  in  Theocritum. 
Tuebingen,  1867. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  study  embraces  the  thirty  idylls  of  Theocritus 
found  in  the  edition  of  Fritzsche,  and  the  nine  epigrams  accepted 
as  genuine  by  both  Ahrens  and  Fritzsche.  In  referring  to  the 
idylls,  the  numbering  employed  by  most  editors,  as  found  in 
Fritzsche,  is  used,  while  in  reference  to  epigrams  the  order  (i-ix), 
found  in  Ahrens,  is  kept,  but  the  numbering  of  Fritzsche,  and 
most  editors,  is  given  in  brackets. 

The  monograph  of  Ameis  mentioned  above  in  the  bibliography, 
and  frequently  referred  to  below  (always  as  "  Ameis "),  was 
published  as  a  specimen  chapter  of  a  proposed  lexicon  of  the 
bucolic  poets.  The  treatment  of  the  article  in  Theocritus  there 
given  does  not  aim  at  completeness,  and  only  the  more  important 
features  are  pointed  out. 


V     OFTHE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


THE   ARTICLE   IN  THEOCRITUS. 


Introduction. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  examination  of  the  article  as  it  is  used 
by  Theocritus,  it  will  be  well  to  consider  briefly  the  leading  facts 
of  its  origin,  and  the  development  of  its  various  functions. 

The  demonstrative  origin  of  the  Greek  article  is  a  well  recog- 
nized fact,  attested  as  well  by  comparison  with  other  languages  of 
the  Indo-European  family,  as  by  the  literary  monuments  of  the 
early  language,  and  the  persistency  with  which  the  demonstrative 
force  attaches  to  the  article  through  all  periods  of  its  history. 
This  demonstrative  origin  was  recognized  by  the  Stoics,  who 
rightly  classed  the  article  among  the  pronouns.  It  appears, 
however,  that  grammarians  probably  as  early  as  Aristarchus 
considered  the  article  (to  apdpov)  a  separate  part  of  speech  entirely 
distinct  from  pronouns  (avrcovvfiiat).  (See  Schoemann,  "  Lehre 
von  den  Redetheilen,"  p.  1 1 7  f.) 

The  first  use  of  a  demonstrative  seems  to  be  to  point  to  some- 
thing that  is  actually  present  to  the  senses,  a  function  called  by 
Apollonius  Dyscolus  '  a  Setf  t?  ttj?  cn/reo>?.2  That  is,  the  demon- 
strative is  local,  and  has  relatively  strong  emphasis,  which  is 
augmented  by  actual  gesture.  Out  of  this  function  develops 
naturally  the  one  whereby  appeal  is  made,  not  directly  to  the 
senses,  but  to  the  intellect  and  mental  experience,  called  by 
Apollonius  (1.  c.)  a  SeZft?  rod  vov.  The  reference  is  then  to 
something  that  is  known,  or  assumed  to  be  known,  either  from 
previous  experience  or,  more  immediately,  as  the  result  of  previous 
mention.       It  is  the  recall  of  a  previously  recognized  object — 


1  irepl  (rvpT&Zews  n.  3.,  page  99.  9,  Bekker. 

2  Brugmann,  "Die  Deraonstrativpronomina,"  p.  15. 

11 


12  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

— ava<f>opd,  avaTroXrjcns.1  The  element  of  actual  gesture  is  lost, 
and  the  pronoun  depends  for  its  emphasis  on  the  position  it 
occupies,  and  the  tone  in  which  it  is  uttered.  It  was  in  this 
avatpopd,  its  most  common  function,  that  the  grammarians  saw  the 
real  nature  of  the  article.  Apollonius  emphasizes  this  in  various 
places,  especially  Synt.  I.  6.  p.  26  (Bekker),  where  he  says, 
"Eo'Tiv  ovv  .  .  .  lSlov  dpOpov  r)  ava$opdy  rj  icrrc  irpOKareiXe^/ /jlcvov 
7rpoao)7rov  irapaaTaTLKT}. 

The  demonstrative  nature  of  the  article  is  clearly  seen  in  another 
use  to  which  it  is  put.  When  two  sentences  are  coordinated,  a 
demonstrative,  by  virtue  of  its  power  of  avacfropd,  may  be  used  at 
the  head  of  the  second  to  connect  the  two  sentences  by  referring  to 
an  antecedent  contained  in  the  first.  Originally  a  paratactic 
relation,  this  connection  of  two  sentences  develops  into  a  hypotactic 
relation,  in  which  the  second  sentence  is  made  dependent  upon  the 
first,  and  the  connecting  demonstrative  becomes  a  relative.2  In 
Attic  Greek  the  form  of  demonstrative  which  is  used  in  this  way 
is  the  relative  pronoun  properly  so  called,  o?,  etc.,  but  the  article, 
as  a  demonstrative,  can  also  appear  in  this  role.  Where  there  is 
still  a  shifting  between  parataxis  and  hypotaxis,  it  is  sometimes 
doubtful,  whether  the  postpositive  sentence,  with  the  article  at  its 
head,  is  dependent  or  not,  whether  the  article  is  demonstrative  or 
relative.3  Since  the  use  of  the  article  as  relative  depends  upon  its 
power  of  avacj)opd,  it  is  natural,  that  the  clause  in  which  it  stands 
regularly  follows  the  clause  containing  the  antecedent,  and  that 
the  antecedent  is  definite.4 

Apollonius  Synt.  i.  6.  p.  26  (Bekker),  cf.  i.  p.  48,  11.  26-28,  ir.  3.  p.  98,  11. 
25.  26,  etc. 

2 See  Professor  Gildersleeve,  "Problems  in  Greek  Syntax,"  A.  J.  P.  xxin, 
pp.  255  f. 

3Cf.  Brugmann,  Griechische  Grammatik  §642.  Apollonius  distinguished  two 
kinds  of  article,  the  "prepositive,"  Apdpov  ttpotciktiicSv,  and  the  "  postpositive, " 
&p6pov  bTOTaKTiicbv  (Synt,  i,  43,  p.  85,  1.  12 ff.  (Bekker)).  All  the  later  Greek 
grammarians  followed  him  in  this  (Eichhorst,  "Die  Lehre des  Apollonius  D.  vom 
articulus  postpositive,"  p.  1),  while  modern  grammar  no  longer  considers  the 
postpositive  form  an  article,  but  a  pronoun,  viz.,  the  relative  pronoun. 

4  Apollonius  saw  difficulty  in  cases  where  the  relative  precedes,  with  an  indefinite 
antecedent,  and  consequently,  when  5s  is  so  used  he  no  longer  called  it  an  article 
but  an  &6pi<TT0P  p.bpiov.    (See  Eichhorst,  o.  c,  page  5.) 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  13 

It  is  but  logical  to  suppose  that  in  its  earliest  conception  the 
demonstrative  was  adapted  to  use  as  an  adjective  as  well  as  a 
substantive  demonstrative.  Mere  juxtaposition  of  the  substantive 
with  a  noun  would  be  sufficient  to  bring  about  a  reduction  of  the 
substantive  demonstrative  to  an  adjective.  Clear  indications  of 
this  process  of  reduction  are  seen  in  Homer.  It  is  attended 
by  a  decrease  also  of  its  pure  demonstrative  value,  tho  in 
Homer  this  is  still  well  preserved.1  Just  as  the  pronominal 
demonstratives,  so  the  adjective  demonstratives,  including  the 
article,  serve  for  sensual  demonstration,  Setft?  tt)?  6S|rea>?,  and 
mental  demonstration,  Setfi?  rod  vov,  dva(j>opd.  Between  these 
two  kinds  of  demonstration  there  is  often  but  a  very  slight  differ- 
ence, and  by  a  simple  gesture  a  Setft?  rod  vov  may  be  made  an 
actual  Setfc  -n}?  ctyeo>?.     (Cf.  Theocr.  Id.  xv.  63). 

We  have  said  that  Apollonius  and  others  saw  in  dvacpopd  the 
real  nature  of  the  Greek  article.  What  Apollonius  included  under 
ava(j)opd  can  best  be  seen  from  his  own  words,  Synt.  I,  6,  p.  2G, 
1.  14  ff  (Bekker).  There  after  saying  that  IlSlov  dpOpov  rj  dva<f>opd, 
he  continues  :  ' Avafa'perat,  8e  rd  6vop,ara  (1)  rjroi  fear  i^o^rjv,  [our 
'  par  excellence/  l  the  famous/  etc.] .  .  .  (2)  t)  koX  Kara  piovaSLtcrjv 
k.tt\o~iv.  6  yap  outgo?  cnrocfMiLvopLevos,  8ov\6<;  o-ov  ravra  eVcu^cre, 
7r\rj6os  V7rayopeveL  SovXcov.  6  8e  p,erd  rod  dpdpov,  6  SovXds  o~ov 
ravra  e7roLr]ae,  pLovabi/crjv  Kriqcnv  urrayopevei.  {  }  H  icai  icar  avro 
povov  drrXrjv  dva<j>opdv  [simple  anaphora,  of  a  thing  previously 
mentioned,  or  known] .  This  passage  has  been  quoted  at  length 
because  of  a  misapplication  of  part  of  it  by  Krueger  in  his  gram- 
mar, 1,  50.  2.  3.  There,  after  stating :  "  Gleichfalls  deiktisch 
steht  der  Artikel,  insofern  der  Begriff  als  einem  bevorschwebenden 
Gegenstande  naturlich,  notorisch  oder  iiblicher  Weise  zukommend 
gedacht  wird,  wo  er  dann  oft  als  schw'dcheres  Possessiv  erscheint" 
he  cites  in  support  of  the  last  part  of  his  statement  Apollonius 

1  The  essential  difference  between  the  early  adjective  article  and  the  real  Attic 
article  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  latter  had  become  customary  or  obligatory  in  certain 
cases  to  mark  an  object  as  definite  and  known.  In  this  sense  the  use  of  the  adjec- 
tive article  is  denied  to  Homer. 

2  Cf.  Apollonius,  page  71,  1.  28  f. 


14  The  Article  in  Theocritus, 

Synt.  i,  36,  p.  72,  Cf.  39,  p.  79  :  'MovaSi/cal  ovcrau  at  KTrjcrei*;  to 
dpdpov  <nraiTov<Tiv?  Compare  Milden,  u  Limitations  of  the 
Predicative  position  in  Greek,"  page  9,  to  a  similar  intent.  But 
it  is  clear,  from  the  passage  cited  from  Apollonius,  and  from 
a  comparison  with  the  places  cited  by  Krueger,  that  Apol- 
lonius is  referring  to  the  use  of  the  article  with  nouns  accom- 
panied by  possessives  or  genitives  of  personal  pronouns  (or 
nouns),  and  means  to  show  that  the  articular  noun  in  such 
cases  designates  an  object  as  the  sole  possession  of  its  kind  :  8ov\6<? 
crov,  a  slave  of  yours  (you  may  have  many),  6  8ov\6<;  a-ov,  your 
only  slave.  More  exactly  stated  this  means,  if  sole  possession  is  to 
be  indicated  the  article  must  be  used,  if  not,  the  article  may  be 
omitted.1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  we  call  a  "  possessive  "  use 
of  the  article  is  not  recognized  by  Apollonius  as  far  as  can  be 
discovered,  is  in  fact  merely  a  modern  category  adopted  for 
convenience  to  characterize  a  certain  phase  at  dvafopd. 

Logically  then,  the  Attic  article  marks  an  object  as  definite  and 
known.  The  generic  article  is  no  exception,  for  it  picks  out  an 
individual  and  lets  it  stand  as  typical  of  its  class.2  The  ancient 
grammarians  recognized  a  generic  article,  and  Apollonius  3  says, 
traopio-T(i>8r)s  7]  cnWafi?  yiverai  rod  dpdpov  \  in  cases,  namely,  like 
H  6  heLTrvr}<ras  irah  /coifidcrda) ",  and  adds  that  the  Stoics  also 
recognized  this  use  of  the  article.  What  marks  the  difference 
between  the  generic  article  and  the  specific  article  is  that,  while 
the  latter  became  obligatory  in  certain  cases,  the  generic  article 
never  became  a  necessity.4 

The  use  of  the  adjective  article  with  substantivized  participles 
was  not  recognized  by  Apollonius,5  except  in  a  few  isolated  cases, 
tho  he  did  admit  its  use  in  the  case  of  other  parts  of  speech  used 
substantively.6     As  substantivized  participles  Apollonius  accepted 


1  Eichhorst,  Philol.  38.  413,  correctly  interprets  the  passage  thus. 

2Cf.  Professor  Gildersleeve,  "Problems,  etc.",  p.  122. 

3  Synt.  i,  34,  p.  68  (Bekker).  *See  Professor  Gildersleeve,  I.  c. 

5 See  Buttmann,  Apol.  Dysc.  Synt.,  p.  83,  note  3  to  108.  20. 

6  Synt,  p.  22,  1.  15  ff  (Bekker). 


UNIV 

The  Article  in  Theocritus.  15 

only  such  few  as  had  become  genuine  substantives  by  common 
usage,  and  with  these  only  he  admitted  the  use  of  the  adjective 
article.  In  other  cases  he  viewed  the  article  as  a  pronoun  to 
which  the  participle  was  added  as  an  attributive. 

Because  of  its  defining  power  the  article  is  used  to  distinguish 
subject  from  predicate,  the  definite  subject  being  articular,  and 
thus  it  becomes  a  rhetorical  means  to  avoid  ambiguity.1  But  the 
predicate  also  admits  the  article,  in  its  deictic  as  well  as  generic 
uses,  and  then  subject  and  predicate  are  logically  equivalent. 

It  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  study  to  trace  the  history  of  the 
Greek  article  in  all  its  functions.  We  need  only  consider  briefly 
a  few  important  facts  of  usage  which  will  help  us  to  fix  the 
position  of  Theocritus. 

The  substautive  article  has  the  widest  range  and  the  freest  use 
in  the  epic  of  Homer.  In  the  Iliad,  we  are  told,2  o,  rj,  to  is  used 
as  a  demonstrative  pronoun  3000  times,  as  adjective  article  218 
times,  or  in  the  ratio  of  14  to  1  ;  and  in  the  Odyssey  the  pro- 
nominal use  occurs  2178,  the  adjectival  171  times,  in  the  ratio  of 
13  to  1.  In  common  with  Homer,  the  lyric  poets,  as  well  as  the 
tragic  poets  often  use  the  article  as  pronoun,  rarely  with  preposi- 
tions,3 the  latter  oftenest  in  Euripides.  Figures  need  scarcely  be 
adduced,  if  they  were  available,  to  show  the  vast  difference  in  the 
relative  frequency  of  the  pronominal  and  adjective  article  between 
Homer  and  Attic  prose.  Under  the  constantly  degrading 
influence  of  the  adjective  article  and  the  simultaneous  growth  of 
other  demonstrative  pronouns,  the  pronominal  article  became  more 
and  more  closely  confined  until  it  was  reduced  in  Attic  to  the 
sphere  of  a  few  fixed  expressions.  On  the  other  side,  the  adjective 
article,  tho  rare  in  Homer  and  Hesiod,  had  won  a  secure  foothold 
and  contained  at  least  potentially  all  the  functions  that  the  later 
article  actively  displayed.     In  Hesiod 4  the  demonstrative  use  of 


1  Cf.  Theon  Progymnasmata-Spengel  Khetores  Graeci,  n,  83. 
2Stummer,  "Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  Artikels  bei  Homer,"  Miinnerstadt,  1886, 
p.  56— quoted  by  Vogrinz,  p.  198. 

3  Bernhardy,  p.  312.  4  Kuehner,  §  458.  1. 


1G  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

the  Article  corresponds  to  the  Homeric  use,  but  the  real  article  as 
we  find  it  in  Attic  is  said  to  be  excluded  altogether.  Late  epic 
writers,  especially  Apollonius,  seem  to  have  reverted  consciously 
to  the  Homeric  use  of  the  article.1  We  shall  see  presently  to 
what  extent  Theocritus  follows  the  same  line.  When  we  come  to 
lyric  poetry  we  find  that  the  article  proper  is  again  very  rare. 
The  farther  the  poetry  is  removed  from  the  language  of  everyday 
life,  the  less  scope  it  affords  for  the  article.  So,  in  Pindar  the 
article  is  a  rare  phenomenon,  and  the  old  demonstrative  meaning 
usually  lies  close  at  hand.2  In  the  lyrical  portions  of  tragedy 
likewise,  the  real  article  is  little  used,  and  even  in  dialogue  it 
is  far  less  frequent  than  in  Attic  prose.  Late  dithyrambic 
writers  carried  the  avoidance  of  the  article  to  excess,  and  in 
Telestes  it  does  not  occur.3  Comic  poetry,  on  the  other  hand, 
approximates  the  popular  language,  and  consequently  we  find  an 
increased  use  of  the  article.  Not  only  is  this  true  of  Aristophanes^ 
but  the  fragments  of  Epicharmus  indicate  the  same  for  the  old 
Dorian  comedy.  But  even  in  comedy  the  differences  between 
lyric  and  dialogue  must  be  taken  into  account,  besides  the  elements 
of  parody,  paratragedy  and  mock  heroic.  In  prose,  it  need 
scarcely  be  said,  the  article  as  such  reached  its  highest  develop- 
ment and  freest  use,  especially  in  Plato.  Coming  now  to  a  later 
period,  a  little  later  than  Theocritus,  if  we  examine  the  mimes  of 
the  Dorian  Herondas,  who  wrote  in  Ionic,  and  in  a  sphere  closely 
related  to  that  of  the  Doric-bucolic  idylls  of  Theocritus,  we  find 
that  the  article  is  used  with  a  frequency  that  equals  if  it  does  not 
actually  exceed  that  found  in  Aristophanes.4 

When  we  take  up  Theocritus,  a  few  general  considerations  must 
be  kept  in  mind  in  order  to  obtain  a  clear  picture  of  his  usage. 
Alexandrian  literature  is  characterized  by  a  studied  imitation  of 
earlier  models,  especially  the  epic  of  Homer.  This  imitation  was 
extended  to  departments  not  strictly  epic,  and  is  shown  by  the 
revival    of  archaisms    in  form,  vocabulary    and    syntax.      That 

1  Kuehner,  I.  c. 

2  See   Professor   Gildersleeve,    Introductory   Essay  to   his   Pindar,  p.  ci,  and 
Stein's  dissertation. 

3  Smyth,  "  Greek  Melic  Poets,"  p.  465.         4See  table,  p.  19. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  17 

Theocritus  is  never  entirely  free  from  this  Alexandrian  influence 
is  to  be  expected.  Judged,  however,  by  the  Doric  idylls,  it  must 
be  admitted  that  he  was  poet  enough  not  to  allow  his  own  fresh 
and  natural  impressions  to  suffer  under  the  influences  active  in  his 
time  at  the  expense  of  realism  and  truth.  The  language  of  these 
rural  idylls,  it  is  true,  is  far  from  being  a  pure  Doric — a  fact  for 
which  allowance  is  to  be  made  in  any  application  to  Theocritus  of 
K.  O.  Muller's  statement1  that  a  free  and  familiar  use  of  the 
article  is  characteristic  of  the  Dorian  dialect — yet  the  essential 
tone  of  the  Sicilian  shepherd  speech  remains.  In  the  epic  idylls, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  expect  to  find  an  actual  return  to  early 
models,  and  imitation  of  the  Homeric  epic.  This  imitation 
Theocritus  carries  out  with  a  great  degree  of  consistency.  Any 
study,  therefore,  of  the  forms,  syntax  and  style  of  our  author  must 
distinguish  between  these  two  principal  types  represented  in  the 
idylls  :  the  Doric  (bucolic,  and  urban  mimi)  and  the  epic  (includ- 
ing one  Ionic  lyrical  piece,  Id.  xn).2  The  differences  between 
these  two  types  are  basic  and  penetrate  the  metrical  form  as  well 
as  the  vocabulary  and  syntax.  Karl  Kunst3  showed  the  differ- 
ences obtaining  between  the  Doric  and  the  epic  idylls  in  the 
treatment  of  the  hexameter.  It  needs  only  a  glance  at  the  tables 
given  below  to  see  how  far  apart  are  these  two  groups  of  idylls  so 
far  as  the  article  is  concerned.4  It  is  true  that  statistics  based 
simply  on  the  number  of  articles  found  in  an  author  cannot 
present  the  facts  in  anything  like  their  full  light.  There  may 
be   stretches  of  poetry  or   prose  where  the   article   would   not 

Gorier,  in,  p.  504. 

2  The  small  group  of  Aeolic  poems  stands  closer  to  the  epic  than  to  the  Doric 
idylls  in  the  treatment  of  the  article. 

3  Diss.  Philol.  Vindob.  i,  p.  1  ff.— cf.  A.  J.  P.  xxi,  352,  vm,  116. 

4  In  the  tables  no  attempt  is  made  to  separate  the  bucolic  idylls  in  the  narrower 
sense  from  the  mimetic  pieces,  as  Kunst  did  for  metrical  study,  since  no  sharp  lines 
can  be  drawn  between  the  two  classes  of  poems  in  the  treatment  of  the  article.  It 
may  be  noted,  however,  that  the  mimetic  pieces,  n,  xiv,  XV,  xx,  xxi,  xxvn, 
(xviii),  do  not  reach  the  highest  average.  Idyl  xviii,  which  Kunst  puts  for  con- 
venience with  the  '  Edyllia  mimica,'  stands  because  of  its  dialect  at  the  end  of  the 
Doric  group  in  the  table,  but  represents  a  different  type  of  poetry  from  the  other 
Doric  pieces,  while  Id.  xn,  Ionic  lyric,  belongs  dialectically  to  the  epic  group, 
where  Kunst  also  puts  it. 


IS  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

be  required,  because  of  the  form  of  the  thought  and  the 
character  of  the  nouns;  and  again  there  may  be  passages  in 
which  the  form  of  the  thought  and  the  character  of  the  nouns 
ordinarily  require  the  article.  That  is  to  say,  the  frequency  or 
infrequency  of  the  article  may  be  due  to  accident,  or  the  nature  of 
the  thought  expressed.  Nevertheless,  masses  of  figures  from 
various  authors  would  at  least  show  the  relative  tendency  in  these 
authors.  Unfortunately  there  are  few  statistics  on  the  Greek 
article.  All  the  available  figures  that  have  been  found  are  incor- 
porated in  the  tables  given  below.  For  the  dramatic  poets  and 
Plato  we  are  confined  to  the  figures  given  by  Fuller,1  which  have 
been  augmented  slightly  by  a  personal  count.  For  Homer  the 
figures  given  by  Stummer  as  cited  by  Vogrinz  (p.  197)  will  have 
to  serve.  Personal  count  of  the  article  in  Herondas  furnishes  the 
basis  for  the  figures  quoted  for  that  author.  From  the  meagre 
statistics  given  for  the  dramatists  no  farreaching  inferences  can  be 
drawn  in  a  comparison  with  the  figures  for  Theocritus.  The 
tables  show  a  far  greater  frequency  of  the  article  in  the  Doric 
idylls  than  in  the  tragedians,  bringing  them  closer  to  Aristophanes. 
It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  in  the  case  of  the 
dramatists  no  distinction  has  been  made  between  lyric  on  the  one 
hand  and  dialogue  on  the  other,  tho  quite  the  same  differences 
may  be  expected  to  obtain  between  these  elements  in  the  drama,  as 
between  the  different  types  represented  in  the  idylls.  Comparison 
with  Herondas  shows  that  in  his  mimes  as  a  whole  the  average 
occurrence  of  the  article  is  greater  than  in  the  Doric  idylls  of 
Theocritus  taken  as  a  whole.  But  the  extremes  in  Herondas 
present  uo  such  differences  as  in  Theocritus,  as  indeed  the 
elements  that  go  to  make  up  the  mimes  of  Herondas  are  not  as 
varied  as  the  elements  in  the  Doric  idylls  of  Theocritus.  It  may  be 
assumed  then,  that  these  two  writers  (Theocritus  in  the  Doric  idylls) 
cannot  be  far  apart  in  the  use  of  the  article.  For  the  epic  group 
of  Theocritean  idylls  we  may  say,  that  here  the  poet  in  general 
follows  the  lines  of  Homer,  tho  with  a  degree  of  greater  freedom  in 
the  addition  of  the  adjective  article. 

JDiss.?  p.  117. 


The  Article  in  Tlieocritus. 


19 


Table  Showing  the  Frequency  of  the  Article  and  the  Comparative 
Frequency  of  Articular  and  Anarthrous  Nouns.1 


Doric 
Idylls 

's 

11 

go 

tJOC 

73  *. 

3* 

be  » 

>  *< 

S 

< 

u 

■11 

13 
1 

c"J5 

u  *.G 
a)  C 

i 

152 

14 

.092 

2 

80 

.526 

142 

52 

194 

26.8 

ii 

166 

6 

.036 

2 

84 

.506 

139 

63 

202 

31.1 

in 

54 

1 

.018 

2 

42 

.777 

29 

25 

54 

46.2 

IV 

63 

— 



1 

57 

.904 

24 

37 

61 

60.6 

V 

150 

3 

.02 

3 

124 

.826 

93 

83 

176 

47.1 

VI 

46 

10 

.217 

— 

29 

.630 

36 

19 

55 

34.5 

VII 

157 

8 

.05 

2 

52 

.331 

190 

34 

224 

15.1 

VIII 

93 

3 

.032 

— 

64 

.688 

91 

54 

145 

37.2 

IX 

36 

5 

.138 

4 

6 

.166 

59 

6 

65 

9.2 

X 

58 

— 



1 

52 

.896 

37 

37 

74 

50. 

XI 

81 

3 

.037 

3 

38 

.469 

70 

27 

97 

27.8 

XIV 

70 

1 

.014 

1 

24 

.342 

54 

12 

66 

18.1 

XV 

149 

4 

.026 

2 

76 

.510 

119 

48 

167 

28.7 

XIX 

8 

1 

.125 

— 

6 

.75 

9 

5 

14 

35.7 

XX 

45 

1 

.022 

— 

19 

.422 

49 

10 

59 

16.9 

XXI 

67 

2 

.029 

2 

54 

.805 

69 

52 

121 

42.9 

XXIII 

63 

2 

.031 

4 

43 

.682 

66 

33 

99 

33.3 

XXVII 

70 

2 

.028 

1 

24 

.342 

77 

16 

93 

17.2 

XVIII 

58 

— 



2 

10 

.172 

79 

4 

83 

4.8 

Total- 

1586 

66 

.041 

32 

884 

.557 

1432 

617 

2049 

30.1 

Epic 


XII 

75 

3 

.04 

1 

20 

.26 

100 

8 

108 

7.4 

XVI 

109 

5 

.045 

1 

6 

.055 

150 

4 

154 

2.5 

XVII 

138 

12 

.086 

2 

6 

.043 

181 

1 

182 

.5 

XXII 

223 

25 

.112 

2 

12 

.053 

331 

3 

334 

.8 

xx  rv 

138 

9 

.065 

3 

8 

.057 

210 

5 

215 

2.3 

XXV 

281 

37 

.131 

3 

14 

.049 

388 

8 

396 

2. 

XXVI 

38 

3 

.078 

— 

11 

.289 

41 

2 

43 

4.6 

Total.. 

1002 

94 

.093 

12 

77 

.076 

1401 

31 

1432 

2.1 

Ion.Lyr. 

XII 

37 

2 

.054 

— 

11 

.29 

42 

3 

45 

6.6 

Aeolic 


XXVIII 

25 

— 



1 

5 

.20 

37 

2 

39 

5.1 

XXIX 

40 

2 

.05 

1 

14 

.35 

25 

6 

31 

19.3 

XXX 

32 

5 

.156 

— 

17 

.531 

24 

13 

37 

35.1 

Total.. 

97 

7 

.072 

2 

36 

.369 

86 

21 

107 

19.6 

Bere- 

NIKE 

5 

1 

.20 

— 

1 

.20 

9 

1 

10 

10. 

Epigr. 

54 

1 

.018 

1 

38 

.703 

40 

22 

62 

35.4 

^n   the  statistics  for  articular  and  anarthrous  nouns  (columns  8-11),  proper 
names,  vocatives  and  predicates  are  excluded. 


20 


The  Article  in   Theocritus. 


43     <1> 

>     CO 
•jg     CD 

<D    CD 

fcJDc 

Homer. 

«3 

ID 

03  -3 

«*J    CD 

S3 

CD1- < 

Iliad. 

15693 

3000 

.191 

218 

.013 

Odyssey. 

12110 

2178 

.171 

171 

.014 

*2~ 

a> 

ve  A 
irstl 
uller 

J  J 

CD  h-1 

■=»&- 

K  ►» 

T3  *-< 

►  ^ 

te 

*  F* 

?5 

<»j  3!=a 

Aeschylus.  Prom.  Vine. 

210 

1114 

230 

.206 

Sophocles.  Oed.  Tyr. 

303 

1530 

484 

.316 

Euripides.  Medea. 

159 

1419 

230 

.162 

"        *  Iphig.  Taur. 

257 

1499 

375 

.250 

Aristophanes.  Vespae. 

562 

1537 

810 

.527 

Plato  Phaedo. 

768 

Theocritus*  {l^]°lln' 

606 

Herondas.* 

Mime. 

Number 
Lines. 

Adj. 
Articles. 

Average 

per 

Line. 

i 

90 

48 

.533 

ii 

102      J 

70 

.686 

in 

97 

73 

.752 

IV 

95 

64 

.673 

V 

85 

47 

.552 

VI 

102 

57 

.558 

VII 

129 

70 

.542 

Total. 

700 

429 

.612 

*  Statistics  marked  (*)  are  based  on  a  personal  count. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  21 

Within  each  of  the  two  principal  groups  of  idylls  the  table 
shows  wide  divergences.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  the 
pieces  of  the  Doric  group,  and  even  within  individual  poems  there 
are  important  variations  as  will  be  seen  presently.  At  one  pole 
stands  Id.  iv,  i  la  plus  rustique  de  toutes '  (Legrand,  p.  242),  with 
an  average  of  .904  per  line;  at  the  other  stands  the  troublesome 
and  corrupt  ix,  with  an  average  of  only  .166.  Or,  to  take  a 
more  legitimate  example  than  ix,  Id.  vn,  the  '  regina  eclogarum ' 
as  Heiusius  called  it,  of  which  large  portions  are  lyric  and 
descriptive,  shows  an  average  of  .361  per  line.  Id.  xviii 
(EXe'vTjs  i7ri0a\dfjLLO<;),  tho  of  the  same  dialect,  is  so  essentially 
different  from  the  other  Doric  idylls  as  to  require  a  place  by  itself. 
In  it  the  average  occurrence  of  the  article  per  line  sinks  to  .172. 
Between  these  extremes  of  the  Doric  group  the  tables  show  variety 
and  gradation.  We  will  return  below  to  a  consideration  of  some 
of  the  phenomena  presented  by  individual  idylls. 

To  turn  briefly  to  the  epic  group,  it  will  be  seen  that  Idd.  xin 
and  xxvi  stand  out  above  the  rest  with  a  freer  use  of  the  adjective 
article.  In  the  case  of  xin  (r/T\a?),  however,  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  twelve  of  the  twenty  adjective  articles  in  the  idyl  are  found 
in  the  introductory  verses  (1-15),  addressed  to  the  poet's  friend 
Nikias  (at  an  average  of  .8  per  line),  while  the  remaining  8 
articles  are  distributed  over  the  sixty  lines  of  the  epyllion  proper 
(at  an  average  of  .13  per  line1).  In  Id.  xxvi  (Afjvai  rj  Ba/c^at), 
the  opening  verses  (1—6),  which  give  the  setting  as  it  were,  contain 
five  of  the  eleven  articles.  In  the  rapid  account  of  the  mystic 
rites,  of  the  confusion  at  the  discovery  of  Pentheus,  and  of  the 
terrible  punishment  for  his  curiosity,  the  article  disappears. 

In  order  to  complete  the  account  of  Theocritean  usage  it  will 
be  necessary  to  consider,  in  addition  to  the  frequency  with  which 
the  article  appears,  also  the  freedom  with  which  it  is  omitted. 
In  the  last  four  columns  of  the  table  (p.  19)  are  given 
statistics  comparing  the  number  of  articular  nouns  (exclusive 
of  substantivized  words),  and  anarthrous  nouns  (excluding  from 


1  The  difference  between  the  introduction  and  epyllion  was  noted  by  Professor 
Gildersleeve  in  his  review  of  Legrand,  A.  J.  P.,  xxi,  352. 


22  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

both  counts  proper  nouns,  and  from  the  latter  predicates  and 
vocatives).  The  same  objections  must  be  admitted  in  the  case  of 
these  figures  as  those  mentioned  above  in  connection  with  the 
preceding  statistics.  We  can,  however,  learn  from  them  approxi- 
mately what  the  state  of  affairs  is.  In  this  discussion  we  may 
lay  aside  the  epic  idylls  with  the  remark  that,  since  they  are 
Homeric  imitations,  a  general  omission  of  the  article  is  normal. 
A  few  instances  where  the  article  is  used  with  an  extension  that 
is  not  Homeric  (Cf.,  xxv,  180  and  84)  do  not  affect  the  general 
result.  Among  the  Aeolic,  lyric,  pieces,  only  Id.  xxx  shows  any 
degree  of  freedom  in  the  use  of  the  article.  The  others  stand 
close  to  the  epic  group. 

In  the  Doric  poems,  on  the  other  hand,  in  accordance  with 
what  has  already  been  said,  the  omissions  of  the  article  are  far 
less  numerous  and  varied.  They  are  not  confined  to  the  cases 
where  Attic  prose  may  omit  the  article,  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  they  seem  to  be  as  extensive  as  in  the  tragic  poets  and  perhaps 
even  in  Aristophanes,  certainly  far  less  extensive  than  in  Homer, 
Hesiod  and  Pindar.  Comparison  with  Herondas  seems  to  indicate 
that  there  is  no  great  difference  between  Theocritus  and  the  author 
of  the  mimes. 

Ameis  (p.  23  f.)  says  simply  that  the  article  is  omitted  with 
great  freedom  by  the  bucolic  poets  in  the  case  of  common  nouns 
unattended  by  attributives.  He  gives  a  list  containing  nearly 
seven  hundred  examples  of  such  omissions  from  the  idylls  and 
epigrams  of  Theocritus — and  the  list  is  evidently  not  intended  to 
be  complete.  He  makes  no  attempt  to  distinguish  between  epic 
and  Doric  idylls,  and  an  examination  of  the  citations  in  the  list 
shows  that  more  than  half  the  cases  cited  for  Theocritus  are  taken 
from  epic  idylls.  In  a  second  list  of  examples  (also  incomplete 
and  apparently  chosen  at  random)  of  cases  where  the  article  is 
omitted  with  nouns  accompanied  by  attributives,  Ameis  includes 
seventy-six  examples  from  Theocritus.  But  here  again  no  less 
than  fifty-one  are  citations  from  epic  idylls.  While  it  is  true,  of 
course,  that  Theocritus  makes  use  of  his  privilege  as  a  poet,  and 
omits  the  article  freely  even  in  the  Doric  idylls,  yet  simple  lists 
and  figures   that  do    not  discriminate  between    epic  and  Doric 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  23 

idylls  are  apt  to  create  false  impressions.  Many  of  the  omissions 
of  the  article  in  Theocritus  will  be  discussed  below  under  the 
various  categories.  What  is  to  be  noted  here  is,  that  in  nearly  all 
of  these  categories  a  large  proportion  of  the  omissions  are  found  in 
epic  idylls.  Furthermore,  prepositional  phrases  and  formulae 
figure  to  a  considerable  extent.  By  taking  these  things  into 
account,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  many  of  the  omissions  of  the 
article  are  such  as  are  permissible  also  in  Attic  prose,  the  margin 
of  actually  poetic  omissions  in  the  Doric  idylls  is  greatly  reduced. 
That  metrical  exigences  may  have  determined  the  poet's  choice  in 
certain  cases  seems  inevitable,  but  we  cannot  admit  that  the 
influence  of  metre  was  great  enough  or  frequent  enough  to  have 
interfered  materially  with  the  natural  taste  of  the  poet  and  so  have 
affected  his  style. 

Within  individual  idylls  of  the  Doric  group  closer  analysis 
shows  considerable  variation  in  the  use  and  omission  of  the  article. 
Idyl  i  may  serve  as  an  example.  In  the  dialogue  portions  of  this 
poem  (11.  1-28,  57-63,  143-152  =  45  lines)  the  article  is  used 
most  freely  (1 .0(3  per  line)  and  omissions  with  nouns  of  definite 
reference  are  correspondingly  rare  (of  ten  omissions,  four  are  in 
prepositional  phrases).  Contrasted  with  this,  stands  the  passage 
containing  the  description  of  the  prize  cup  (11.  29-56),  where  the 
article  sinks  to  an  average  of  .214  per  line,  with  a  corresponding 
increase  in  omissions  (fifteen  with  nouns  of  definite  reference). 
Commentators  have  long  noticed  the  epic  coloring  in  this  passage, 
shown  in  epic  forms,  words  and  expressions,  and  in  the  free  use 
of  the  substantive  article. — The  gS&j  (11.  64-142)  occupies  middle 
ground  between  the  other  two  parts,  with  an  average  of  .455 
articles  per  line.  Its  tone  is  noticeably  higher  than  that  of  the 
dialogue,  and  epic  forms  occur  with  considerable  frequency.  The 
tendency  to  greater  freedom  in  the  omission  of  the  article  in  this 
(pSrj  than  in  the  dialogue,  might  suggest  similar  conditions  in  other 
idylls  where  we  have  songs  incorporated  in  the  poems.  An 
examination,  however,  of  such  idylls  (viz.  xi,  xv,  xvm, — V,  VI, 
vn,  viii,  x)  proves,  that  the  song  portions  of  the  Doric  idylls 
show  no  characteristic  treatment  of  the  article,  different  from  other 
parts  of  the  poems.     Just  so  Legrand  (p.  426)  has  shown,  that 


24  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

Theocritus  does  not  aim  to  distinguish  his  pastoral  songs  from 
other  parts  of  the  idylls  metrically  or  musically,  and  that  the 
bucolic  caesura  is  treated  in  the  same  way  in  the  songs  as  in  other 
portions  (ib.  p.  425). 

For  Id.  ii  it  may  be  noted  that  in  the  monologue  of  Simaetha 
(63-165),  her  address  to  the  moon — a  passage  cited  by  Legrand 
(p.  262)  as  showing  a  greater  proportion  of  epic  forms — there  is  a 
falling  off  of  the  article  (from  an  average  of  .451  in  other  parts 
to  .216,  the  refrain  counted  once).  So  in  Id.  xiv  the  introductory 
dialogue  shows  few  actual  omissions  of  the  article.  But  in  the 
prj(iL<i  of  Aeschines  they  become  more  numerous,  and  in  the  rapid 
and  excited  account  of  the  lover's  quarrel  with  his  mistress,  the 
article  disappears.  This  passage  again  is  cited  by  Legrand  (/.  c.) 
as  showing  traces  of  epic  diction. — In  the  rapid  exchange  of  speech 
between  the  impassioned  lover  and  the  reluctant  girl  in  Id.  xxvn, 
there  is  a  marked  freedom  in  the  omission  of  the  article — especially 
with  names  of  parts  of  the  body,  nouns  of  relationship,  and  nouns 
accompanied  by  possessives  or  genitives  of  personal  pronouns. 
For  Id.  ix  we  may  note  great  unevenness  in  the  use  of  the  article. 
Introduction  (1-6),  Menalkas'  song  (15-21),  and  narrative  (14, 
22-27)  lack  the  article  ;  the  concluding  address  to  the  Muses  (28- 
38)  has  but  one  article  (32) ;  while  the  remaining  five  articles  of 
the  piece,  all  generic,  are  found  in  the  seven  lines  of  Daphnis' 
song  (7-13). 

This  analysis  might  be  carried  further  and  applied  to  each  of 
the  idylls.  It  has  been  carried  far  enough,  however,  for  our 
purpose.  We  will  proceed  in  the  following  to  a  detailed  account 
of  the  use  of  the  article  by  Theocritus. 

A.   Substantive  Use  of  the  Article. 

i.  The  article  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun.  The  use  of  the 
article  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun  is  not  restricted  in  Theocritus 
to  the  cases  that  are  common  in  Attic  prose,  but  includes  also 
cases  that  are  peculiar  to  the  language  of  epic  and  appear 
occasionally  in  Attic  poetry.  The  epic  idylls  naturally  show  a 
much  freer  use  of  the  substantive  (demonstrative)  article  than  the 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  25 

Doric  idylls,  because  of  conscious  imitation  of  Homer.1  It  is 
seen,  however,  that  even  here  the  proportion  of  substantive  to 
adjective  articles  is  not  nearly  so  great  as  in  Homer.2 

1.  The  substantive  (demonstrative)  article,  unaccompanied  by  a 
particle.  This  is  the  least  common  use  of  the  substantive  article 
in  Theocritus,  as  it  is  in  Homer  and  the  Attic  poets.  Fifteen 
cases  occur,  seven  of  them  in  epic  idylls.  It  is  found  only  in  the 
oblique  cases,  and  resumes  an  object  previously  mentioned  either 
as  subject  or  in  an  oblique  case.  In  only  three  cases  (i,  37,  91  ; 
xxv,  129)  it  is  used  with  a  preposition.  In  all  cases  save  xvi, 
40  the  article  stands  in  the  thesis  of  the  foot,  and  in  eight  at  the 
head  of  the  line.  The  occurrences  are  the  following  :  I,  29,  37, 
60,  91;  vi,  43  (twice);  vn,  103;  ix,  33;  xvi,  40;  xvn,  85; 
xxn,  53,  161,  195;  xxv,  129,  278. 

The  dative  of  the  substantive  article,  unsupported  by  a  particle 
is  occasionally  used  as  an  adverb.3  So,  tw,  "therefore,''  xvn, 
28,  38  ;  xxv,  186  ;  ra  =  "  turn,"  xxix,  11 ;  tt},  "there,"  xxv, 
159.  One  of  these  stands  outside  the  epic  group,  in  the  Aeolic 
xxix,  and  all  stand  in  the  thesis  of  the  first  foot. 

2.  The  substantive  article  accompanied  by  a  particle.  This  is 
far  the  commoner  use  of  the  substantive  article.  Most  frequently 
the  article  so  used  stands  at  the  head  of  a  clause,  followed  by  fiev, 
Se,  yap,  Srj,  ye}  or  preceded  by  avrdp.  This  use,  of  which  certain 
phases  survive  in  Attic  prose,  is  not  so  closely  confined  as  the 
preceding,  but  occurs  with  considerable  freedom  also  outside  the 
epic  idylls. 

a.  A  use,  characteristic  as  it  is  common,  is  the  use  in  balanced 
clause  of  o  fiev  and  o  Be:  I,  48  Sv  a\a>7re/ce?,  a  fiev  .  .  .,  a  B\  Here 
a  uev  .  .  .  a  8e,  designating  parts  are  put  in  apposition  with  the 
word  signifying  the  whole  (cf.  Ameis,  p.  9),  as  in  Homer,  Od.  12, 
73,  cf.  Od.  18.95.  A  similar  construction,  with  a  noun  in  the 
singular  designating  the  whole  is  found  in  a  Skolion  :4 

a  u?   rav  fiakavov  rav  /xev  e^et  rav  fteparai  Xafielv 
/cayo)  TralSa  /caXrjv  rrjv  fjuev  e%0)  tyjv  h'epa^at  Xafieiv. — 

1  See  table,  introd. ,  p.  20.  2  See  figures  cited  above  from  Stummer. 

3  Ameis,  p.  9.  4 Smyth,   «  Greek  Melic  Poets,'  p.  152,  18. 


26  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

where  the  lirst  line  is  spoken  by  a  Dorian,  while  in  the  second  an 
Athenian  parodies  the  rustic  taste  of  the  Dorian  (Smyth).  An 
unusual  application  of  this  construction  is  that  in  Id  xxu,  112  : 
ardpKes  8*  ai  fiev  IBpwn  avvL^avov,  i/c  fieydXov  Be  I  aTyjr  0X4709 
j ever  avBpos  •  0  S'  alel  irdcraova  yvla  I  airrofievos  fyopeeaice  ttovov 
Xpoty  Be  t'  afielvco. — Instead  of  the  expected  al  Be  there  is  a  shift 
here  to  the  person,  making  the  construction  a  mixed  one :  u  but 
their  bodies — that  of  the  one  kept  shrinking  .  .  .  while  the  other 
(man)  grew  ever  stronger." 

Other  instances  of  the  use  of  o  fiev  .  .  .  6  Be  in  balanced  clauses 
are  :  v,  94 ;  VI,  2,  43  ;  xi,  58  ;  xv,  128  ;  xvn,  30  ;  xxx,  18-21. 
In  the  sense  "some  .  .  .  some,"  "part  .  .  .  part,"  "some  .  .  . 
others,"  we  find  0  fiev  .  .  .  o  Be:  vm,  70;  xvi,  24;  xxv,  9  if., 
49 ;  xxx,  4. 

In  place  of  either  0  fiev  or  0  Be  another  pronominal  form,  or 
a  noun  may  be  used  :  rj  fiev  .  .  .  o?  Be  xxvn,  68.  to>  fiev  .  .  .  3 
Be  XXII,  182.  0  fiev  .  .  .  iya>  Be  II,  138.  0$  fiev  .  .  .  epXv  Be 
IX,  4.  6  /juev  .  .  .  avrap  eya)  VII,  130.  6  fxev  .  .  .  rbv  B*  erepov 
XII,  13.  0  fiev  .  .  .  aWbs  Be  XXV,  102  ff.  apes  fiev  .  .  .  a  Be 
XIV,  20.     nev0ev?  fiev  .  .  .  at  Be  xxvi,  16. 

In  two  cases  the  first  member  of  the  pair  is  omitted,  but  is 
implied  in  the  preceding  words  :  xvn,  105  ;  xxv,  187. 

b.  6  Be,  o2  6Y,  etc.,  without  a  preceding  o  fiev,  ol  fiev,  etc.  This 
use  of  the  substantive  article  in  the  nominative  case,  at  the  head  of 
a  sentence,  is  one  of  the  uses  that  survived  even  in  Attic  prose. 
It  is  frequent  in  Theocritus  and  is  by  no  means  limited  to  the 
epic  idylls.  As  in  Attic,  the  article  here  regularly  marks  a 
change  of  subject.  Cases  where  there  is  no  such  change  are  rare 
in  Attic,  and  no  certain  examples  occur  in  Theocritus.  The 
following  cases,  marking  a  change  of  subject,  are  found  in  Theo- 
critus :  I,  35,  tcl  B'  ov  cf>pevb<;  airTerai  aura? — ra  Be  refers  to  the 
rivalries  of  the  two  lovers,  as  just  described.  The  neuter  plural 
referring  to  the  general  context  of  an  immediately  preceding 
sentence  or  clause  is  found  again  in  the  epic  idyl  xxu,  167  and 
181. — 1,  37.  ot  8'  .  .  .  .  I  .  .  .  eTGHTLa  fiox@%ovTi,  referring  to  the 
two  objects  of  the  foregoing  sentence. — 11.  102.  a  8'  rjvOe,  i.  e.  the 
maid  addressed  in  the  preceding  line.     In  all  other  instances  the 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  27 

reference  is,  as  in  the  examples  quoted,  to  a  person  or  thing  either 
directly  mentioned  in  the  preceding  sentence,  in  an  oblique  case, 
or  clearly  implied:  VI,  10,  15,  26;  VII,  128,  156;  IX,  27; 
XI,  13 ;  xnr,  47,  70 ;  xv,  57  ;  xvi,  8  ;  xvn,  32,  62,  63  ;  xix, 
3  ;  xxn,  10,  80,  191,  198  ;  xxm,  53 ;  xxiv,  12,  17,  30,  41,  55, 
71  ;  xxv,  94 ;  xxx,  25. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  is  no  certain  example  in  Theocritus 
of  b  Be  used  at  the  head  of  a  sentence  in  the  nominative  without 
a  change  of  subject.  A  possible  case  is  II,  61  :  e/c  Ovecov  BeBerai  • 
o  Be  /Jbev  Xoyov  ovBeva  iroiel.  But  BeBeficu  is  given  by  the  mss., 
and  if  this  reading  is  retained,  o  Be  marks  a  new  subject.  The 
reading  of  the  whole  line  is,  however,  open  to  question. 

In  two  instances,  in  dialogue,  an  individual,  addressed  in  a 
command — and  so  subject  of  an  imperative — or  in  the  nominative 
for  the  vocative,  is  referred  to  in  a  following  clause  by  o  Be :  v. 
149,  and  xv.  30. 

The  oblique  cases  of  6  Be,  oc  Be,  etc.  are  likewise  used  without 
a  corresponding  6  fiev,  to  refer  to  persons  or  things  previously 
mentioned  or  easily  recognized  from  the  context.  The  antecedent 
referred  to  is  regularly  subject  of  the  preceding  sentence  or  clause  : 
i,  39,  100,  138  ;  n,  48 ;  vi,  20 ;  vn,  27,  90 ;  vm,  8  ;  xxn,  88  ; 
xxm,  59 ;  xxv,  1,  42,  51,  68,  126,  235. 

In  three  instances  an  oblique  case  of  8  Be  refers  to  an  antecedent 
other  than  a  subject  of  a  preceding  sentence  :  n,  78.  (77)  elBov 
AeX(f>Lv  ofiov  T€  Kal  RvBd/U7T7rov  lovras  .  tois  B'tjv  %av6oTepa 
fiev  eki'xpvcroLO  yeveids. — XXIV,  10.  B(vao~e  (sc.  'A\/c/JLr)va)  tra/co? 
fjLe'ya  •  (in  which  lay  the  two  infant  brothers  Herakles  and 
Iphikles)  tow  By  e\a/3'  vttvos. — xxvi,  14.  (13)  vvv  B*  irdpage 
(sc.  Avtovoo)  .  .  .  opyia  Bd/c%(o,  |  .  .  .  .  ra  8'  ov%  opeovri 
/3e/3rj\oc.1 

In  apodoses  of  conditional  and  relative  sentences  Homer  and 
Herodotus  sometimes  use  o  Be  (also  in  oblique  cases)  to  refer  to  an 
antecedent   in    the    subordinate    clause   (also    in   oblique  cases2). 

1  mss.  t&  5'.  Meineke  and  Hiller  r&re  ;  but  Fritzsche — to  vn.  59 — correctly 
notes  "nunquam  videlicet  Theocritus  dixit  toLtc,  ralre,  r&re  cet.  pro  olVe,  atre 
cet." 

2  See  Kriiger,  n,  50,  1,  11,  and  compare  Homer  II.  xi,  409. 


28  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

Such  a  use  can  also  be  cited  for  Theocritus  in  the  following 
instances  :  ix,  36,  ou?  yap  opevvn  |  yadevaau  (sc.  Molaai),  row  £' 

OVTL  7TOTft>    8a\r)<TClTO    J^ipKT).        XXIX,    17,   KOI  fJL6V   (T€V  TO  KClXoV  Tt? 

cSoov  pedos  alveaaij  |  tw  8'  evdv<;  rnrXeov  rj  rpieTr}?  eyevev  <f>i\o<;. 
The  Be  is  in  these  cases  the  so-called  apodotic  8e.  In  n,  1 24  : 
kcli  fju  el  fiev  h?  eSe'xeo-Oe,  tcl  S'  rjs  (f>i\a  (where  tcLS'  is  preferred  by 
some  editors),  ra  8e  may  be  explained  in  the  same  way,  as 
referring  to  the  preceding  context  (as  in  I,  35,  discussed  above 
under  2  b.)  :  "  if  you  had  received  me,  that  had  been  dear  to  me." 
Compare  the  scholiast  ad  loc.  :  /cal  ravra  civ  /caXw?  el^ev  (vfJL^,v)  > 
and  :  rjv  av  tovto  irpocrfyikh} 

When  the  relative  conditional  clause  follows  the  main  clause, 
the  case  is  slightly  different,  as  in  xvn,  74  :  6  8'  eifoxos,  ov  ice 
fyCkriar)  (sc.  Zeu?)  yetvofxevov  tcl  irp&ra. 

c.  6  fievj  oi  pep,  etc.,  without  a  corresponding  o  8e,  o'i  8e9  etc., 
in  the  nominative  case  resumes  a  person  or  thing  previously 
mentioned  and  is  always  followed  by  a  contrasted  action  of  the 
same  or  of  another  subject.  The  nominative  case  never  stands  at 
the  head  of  the  sentence  or  clause,  but  is  preceded  by  one  or  two 
particles — namely  /cat,  ei  he,  rjrot,  &?.  Following  instances  occur 
in  Theocritus:  I,  138;  vn,  90;  xx,  17;  xxi,  46;  xxv,  45, 
223  ;  xxvi,  3  ;  xxvn,  66. 

The  oblique  cases  of  o  fiev  so  used,  with  one  exception  (xxi,  58), 
stand  at  the  head  of  the  seutence.  Of  the  fifteen  occurrences, 
eleven  are  in  epic  idylls  and  a  twelfth  in  the  Ionic  xn.  In  most 
cases  the  demonstrative  refers  to  the  subject  of  the  preceding 
sentence.  The  occurrences  may  simply  be  noted.  They  are, 
1,57;  ix,  22;  xn,  25;  xvn,  36 ;  xxi,  58;  xxn,  102,131, 
196;  xxv,  73,  92,  138,  145,  204,  250,  262. 

d.  The  substantive  article  with  other  particles.  Tap :  The 
substantive  article  with  yap,  frequent  in  Homer,  found  occasion- 
ally in  tragedy,  in  Pindar,  and  in  Herodotus,2  and  cited  even  for 
Thucydides,3  occurs  in  Theocritus  only  in  two  epic  idylls  :  xvn,  4  ; 

1  This  is  a  more  natural  interpretation  than  that  of  Fritzsche  who  refers  tA  5^ 
to  "  Amici  .  .  .  .  quasi  dicas  vernacule  'das  Volkchen'  (those  good  fellows) 
V.  119." 

2Krueger,  n,  50,  1,  2,  3See  commentators  to  Thuc.,  i,  69,  2  ;  vi,  36,  2. 


The  Article  in   Theocritus.  29 

xxv,  5,  44,  197,  and  in  the  Berenice  frg.,  line  4. — At;  :    to  877, 
VII,  29. — Avrdp  :  avrap  o,  xxii,  105  ;  XXV,  232. 

e.  The  article  as  a  substantive  antecedent  to  a  relative  clause  is 
found  in  Homer,  Pindar  and  Herodotus.  In  Attic  prose  it  occurs 
with  some  degree  of  frequency  only  in  Plato.1  Even  in  epic 
diction  this  use  is  rare.  Three  examples  may  be  cited  for  Theo- 
critus from  epic  idylls:  xvi,  5,  rcov  ottogoi  .  .  .  valovaiv.  XXII, 
182,  tq)  /lev  ...  &)  yeverj  irpofyepeaicov.  XXV,  193,  to  fxev  ottc  fie 
irpoiTOv  avrjpev.  In  VII,  94,  aXka  to  y  i/c  Travrcov  fxey  xnreipo'xpv 
<sc.  Si8ai;av^>,  o5  tv  yepaipeiv  apgevp,  <at>,  most  editors  write 
Toy  or  t68\  This  use  of  the  article  is  simply  a  type  of  anaphora 
whereby  the  speaker  or  writer  anticipates  his  own  words  and 
points  forward  to  the  following.  The  relative  clause  takes  the 
place  of  a  noun  with  the  article.     Compare  Plato,  Euthyd.  291  a. 

f.  The  noun  to  which  0  fiev  or  o  8e  refers  may  be  added  in 
apposition.  It  is  often  separated  from  the  article  by  a  considerable 
interval.  This  form  of  expression  begins  in  Homer  and  remains 
the  property  of  epic  also  in  Alexandrian  times,  especially  in 
Callimachus.  It  is  a  form  of  deixis  suited  to  the  language  of 
everyday  life  and,  hence,  is  more  frequent  in  Aristophanes  and 
Plato  than  in  the  tragedians  and  historians.2  In  Homer  it  is  most 
frequent  in  the  nominative  case,  and  with  #  6V,  but  is  found  also 
in  the  oblique  cases.3  The  occurrences  in  Theocritus,  mostly  in 
epic  idylls,  are  confined  to  the  nominative  case,  and  in  all  save 
three  instances  to  0  he  :  111,  44  ;  xin,  17  ;  xvn,  71  ;  xxn,  27,  76, 
91,  99,  109,  110,  137,  183,  203;  xxiv,  26,  51 ;  xxv,  86,  148, 
153.  In  most  cases  the  noun  referred  to  by  the  article  is  clear 
from  the  context  even  before  the  addition  of  the  apposition.  An 
exception  is  XXI,  17,  oifBeh  By  iv  /jl€o-o-g)  yefrcov  ireXev  a  8e 
irap  avTav  |  6\if$op,4vav  icakvftav  Tpvfyephv  irpoo-eva^e  OaXaaaa.4 
The  indefiniteness  of  a  oY,  and  its  distance  from  Oakaoraa  cause 


xKrueger,  ir,  50,  2,  5,  and  1,  50,  1,  20.  Cf.  Gildersleeve  to  Justin  Martyr 
A,  I,  5,  8. 

2  Bernhardy,  Wissenschaf tliche  Syntax,  page  308.  3  Foerstemann,  page  6. 

4Reiske's  conjecture  ir£\ev  •  6.  is  now  generally  adopted  for  vevia  of  mss.  11,  18. 
M.  and  Edd.  Junt.  and  Call.  (Cholraeley  trevlq),  and  tt&vtt]  of  the  Aldine  ed. 


30  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

no  difficulty.  Such  separatiou  would  uot  seem  abnormal  to  a 
Greek.1 

ii.  The  article  as  a  illative  pronoun.  The  use  of  forms  of  the 
article  as  relative  pronouus  is  not  found  in  Attic  prose.  That  its 
use  in  this  manner  was  not  altogether  foreign  to  Attic  is  evidenced 
by  its  appearance  in  private  inscriptions.2  The  usage  was  continued 
in  the  /coivrj  and  survives  in  modern  Greek.3  In  old  Ionic  it  was 
frequent,  but  o?  and  01  are  more  common  than  6  and  to/.4  It  was 
common  also  in  Aeolic,  Doric,  and  Neoionic.  Herodotus  so  uses 
the  forms  with  initial  t,  but  with  prepositions  also  the  ordinary 
relative,  and  with  tj?  only  the  latter — tho  Homer  shows  6Vt?, 
oirep.5  The  fragments  of  Epicharmus  and  the  poems  of  Pindar 
offer  examples  for  Doric.  In  Alexandrian  poetry  the  Homeric 
use  is  freely  imitated,  and  in  Theocritus  the  article  as  relative 
occurs  in  most  of  the  poems.  The  ordinary  forms  of  the  relative 
are  of  course  far  more  common. 

This  relative  use  of  the  article  is  in  general  restricted  in  Theo- 
critus as  in  Homer,6  to  clauses  that  refer  to  a  definite  antecedent, 
and,  therefore,  regularly  follow  the  antecedent  clause.  Two  cases 
are  cited  from  Homer  where  this  rule  is  not  observed,  II.  I,  125, 
Od.  iv,  349  (=  xvn,  140).7  In  correlation  with  a  demonstrative, 
forms  of  the  article  are  not  used  as  relatives.  With  one  possible 
exception  (xv,  86),  only  forms  with  initial  t  are  used  as  relatives 
by  Theocritus.  The  antecedent  is  indefinite  in  but  one  instance : 
XXIX,  3,  KTJyco  fih  ra  cfrpe'vcov  ipe'co  /cear  iv  pvyuf.  The  article 
as  relative,  with  a  definite,  preceding  antecedent  is  found  as 
follows:  i,  47,  118;  n,  12,  67;  in,  22,  35;  iv,  59;  v,  8,  11, 
93;  VII,  59,  93;  IX,  10,  23,  24,  29;  x,  4,  (v.  1.  a?);  xi,  16, 
47,  53;  xin,  57;  xiv,  34;  xv,  86,  o  Tpt^iXrjro^  "A6Wj?  o  tcqv 
'Kxepovn  faXeirai,8  117;   xvi,   102;  XVII,   5,  128;  xvin,   25, 

1Cf.  Pindar,  O,  xi  (x),  19,  and  Gildersleeve,  ad  loc. 

2  Meisterhans 2,  123,  cf.  Volker  ;  "  Syntax  d.  gr.  Papyri,"  i,  p.  6. 

3Brugmann,  §642.  4  Monro,  262. 

5Krueger,  n,  25,  5.4.  6  Monro,  §262.  7Brugmann,  §642,  p.  550. 

8  The  only  example  of  a  form  without  initial  t  used  as  relative.  (For  this  use 
in  Homer,  cf.  Krueger,  n,  15,  1,  2).  For  the  vulg.  8  .  .  .  0i\etrai,  Ahrens  wrote 
6s  after  MS.  p.  —  contrary  to  the  metre,  while  Fritzsche  followed  Beiske  in  reading 
6  .  .  .  <Pi\t)t6s,  from  the  variant  (pikrJTai  in  some  minor  mss.,  and  early  edd. 
Theocritus  may  have  used  #  simply  for  metrical  reasons. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  31 

37;  xxi,  38,  62  ;  xxn,  55,  183  (?) ;  xxm,  9,  43,  46,  58  ;  XXIV, 
4,  29  (?),  114;  xxv,  2,  34,  209;  XXVII,  19;  xxvm,  10  ; 
Epigram  viii  (xvn),  5. 

B.   Adjective  Use  of  the  Article. 

1.  With  objects  present  to  the  senses,  Setfi?  t?}?  cn/re&)?.  From 
what  has  already  been  said  of  the  origin  of  the  article,  it  is  clear 
that  in  its  earliest  stage  the  adjective  article  was  used  with  the 
names  of  objects  actually  present  to  the  senses.  When  the  article 
was  still  largely  implicit  in  the  noun,  its  addition  was  necessarily 
attended  by  a  certain  degree  of  emphasis  or  direction.  With  the 
growth  of  other  demonstratives,  however,  and  the  rapid  extension 
of  the  article  itself  to  wider  uses,  this  emphasis  decreased  until  by 
the  time  of  the  Attic  period  the  adjective  article  in  all  its  uses  was 
relatively  unemphatic.  The  Alexandrian  poets,  we  are  told,1  often 
used  the  article  with  demonstrative  force.  If  this  is  true,  it  can 
be  due  only  to  a  conscious  return  to  earlier  models.  In  Attic  and 
later  Greek,  when  the  article  had  long  been  fully  developed,  its  use 
to  point  to  things  actually  present  was  probably  no  more  emphatic 
than  any  of  its  other  uses,  unless  supported  by  actual  gesture. 
This  is  true  of  our  own  definite  article  and  that  of  modern  German 
as  well,  tho  both  English  and  German  use  the  article  in  this  way 
with  far  less  freedom  than  Greek,  and  more  readily  resort  to 
stronger  demonstratives.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  analysis 
into  " objects  present  to  the  senses,"  "previously  mentioned," 
"  present  to  the  mind,"  etc.,  is  merely  convenient  categorization, 
and  does  not  imply  that  there  was  to  a  Greek  any  difference  in 
meaning  between  the  article  in  one  case  and  in  another.  Among 
the  examples  to  be  cited  under  the  present  category  there  are 
comparatively  few  where  the  simple  article  in  English  will  not 
approximately  give  the  value  of  the  Greek  article.  For  instance, 
when  Battos  (Id.  IV,  1)  asks  Corydon,  "  tivos  al  ^5oe?";  the 
article  evidently  points  to  the  cattle  before  him,  and  yet  al  is  by 
no  means  equivalent  to  aihe  or  avrat.  "  Whose  are  the  cows," 
or  even  "  whose  cows  "  practically  puts  as  much  emphasis  upon 

1  Ostermann,  Jahnii  Ann.  1858,  vol.  78,  p.  361. 


32  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

at  as  was  intended.  Similarly,  Id.  I,  2,  ttotI  rais  ira^alcri  is  not 
"  by  yonder  spring,"  or  "  by  this  spring/'  but  simply  "  by  the 
spring,"  the  one,  namely,  in  the  landscape  before  us  and  the  only 
one  at  this  moment  of  special  interest.  Where  emphasis  is  actually 
laid  upon  the  location  of  a  person  or  thing,  the  demonstratives  are 
freely  used,  or,  where  the  demonstrative  pronoun  is  not  added,  the 
presence  of  some  demonstrative  form  often  supports  the  article, 
much  like  a  gesture  in  actual  conversation.  So,  for  instance,  wSe 
(in,  38;  IV,  51),  relSe  (i,  12;  v,  32),  Bevpo  (i,  21  ;  XXVII,  10, 
12),  rjvChe  (v,  23),  or  a  demonstrative  standing  with  another  noun 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  (i,  1,  8,  13,  23 ;  v.  63,  101).  In  some 
other  cases  actual  gesture  must  be  imagined,  as  in  xxn,  69,  where 
Amycus  refers  to  himself  as  6  ttvktt]^.  The  following  cases  of 
this  use  of  the  article,  with  objects  present  to  the  senses,  have  been 
noted,  none,  save  xxn,  69,  from  epic  idylls:  i,  1,  2,  8,  13,  21, 
23;— in,  38;— IV,  1,  44  (two),  45  (tov  OaWov),  46,  50,  52 
(two),  55; — v,  3,  24  (two,  a>/9t<£o?, — with  anaphora  also  to  1.  21  ; 
—tov  €v/3otov  &fiv6v),  32,  47,  48,  49,1  63,  75,  78,  99,  100  (ra? 
kotivov),  101,  102  (ras  Spvos),  110  (tov  aliroXov),  138  ;— VI,  11, 
13  ; — vil,  43  ; — vin,  27  (two),  44  (%<w  wotynqv  =  iyco  •  cf.  viii, 
48,  xxn,  69);— xv,  14,  27  (to  vdfia),2  65,  81,  89,  145  (to 
Xpnpa  o-ocj)Q)T€pov  !  a  drjXeia);3 — XXII,  69; — xxvn,  10,  12,  57; 
— Epigram,  I,  (i),  1,  3  ; — IV,  (xn),  I,  (top  TpiiroSa)  ; — IX  (xxi),  2. 
2.  With  objects  previously  mentioned.  From  a  Setft?  -n)?  cn/reo)? 
to  a  Setft?  tov  vov  is  but  a  short  step,  as  we  have  seen,  and  the 
line  between  the  two  cannot  in  some  cases  be  sharply  drawn.  The 
categories  frequently  overlap.  By  a  SeZfi?  tov  vov  is  meant 
reference  to  a  definite  object  that  is  present  to  the  mind.  This 
mental  presence  is  either  due  to  the  fact  that  the  given  object  has 

1  In  connection  with  the  lines  last  quoted,  47-49,  note  rovrei,  <55e,  %vda,  11.  45-47. 

2Na/ta  seems  to  be  a  rare  hyperdoric  form  for  vijfia,  "sewing."  Na/m  from  vdw, 
11  liquid  matter,"  belongs  to  a  higher  sphere,  being  especially  common  in  the 
tragic  poets,  particularly  Euripides,  and  nowhere  occurs  in  the  sense  "basin  of 
water,"  as  would  be  required  here,  tho  in  idyl  xxm,  61  it  is  used  of  the  water 
in  a  natatorium. 

8  T6  XPVP-0;  in  the  speech  of  the  Syracusan  woman  refers  to  the  singer  of  the 
Adonis  song.  The  line  is  doubtful,  but  this  reading  and  the  interpretation  of 
Fritzsche  seems  most  reasonable.    See  for  a  discussion  of  the  line,  Legrand,  p.  308. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  33 

previously  come  within  the  range  of  the  hearer's  mental  experience 
and  is  suggested  again  by  a  present  circumstance,  or  it  is  due  more 
immediately  to  a  direct  mention  or  implication  of  the  object  in  the 
preceding  words.  That  Apollonius  uses  the  term  avafyopd  in  its 
widest  sense  to  cover  both  these  cases  is  clear  not  only  from  his 
triple  division  of  this  function,  but  also,  because  he  speaks  of 
ava<f>opd  as  presupposing  in  general  a  Trpov^earcoo-a  yvcoai,?,1  or, 
in  a  narrower  sense,  as  a  recall  of  a  irpoKareuXe^ fievov  irpoa-oyrrovr 

We  will  take  up  first  the  cases  of  simple  anaphora  of  things 
that  have  been  mentioned  or  implied.  The  article  was  used  for 
this  purpose  as  early  as  Homer's  day,  but  while  the  emphasis  upon 
this  article  was  comparatively  strong  in  the  early  period,  in  Attic 
and  later  Greek  it  was  no  longer  so. 

In  contrast  with  the  preceding  category,  it  is  to  be  noted  that 
no  small  number  of  the  examples  to  be  cited  here  are  found  in 
epic  idylls,  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  others  occur  in  narrative 
passages.  I,  41,  6  Trpecrfivs,  i.  e.  the  jptTreis  ye'pcov  of  1.  39,3  50, 
61,  92,  143  (two),  149  ;— n,  36,  72,  159;— iv,  22  (6  Safios,  the 
dcme  of  rol  SafMorat  of  line  21),  37,  52  a  w6pTi^\ — v,  24,  30, 
61,  139,  144,  149;— vir,  34,  42,  128  ;— vm,  28  (two),  29  (two), 
61,  81  (two),  84,  88;— xi,  17;— xm,  14,  46,  59;— xv,  129  (o 
yafiftpos,  i.  e.  "AScovk,  1.  128),4  148; — xix,  5  (rav  oSvvav,  implied 
in  /cevTa<T<re,  1.  1.); — XXI,  4  (top  vttvqv,  after  kclv  oXfyov  vvktos 
Ti?  iwifjiiKTorycn :  "  the  little  sleep  he  does  snatch."),  14  (rots 
aXievo-cv),  20,  26  (o  Katpos,  i.  e.  to  /caXov  de'pos)  46,  47  (two),  50, 
52,  53  (to>  xpvaq>,  with  anaphora  to  :  aveiXfcvaa  y^pvaeov  IxOvv. 
Cf.  %/juo-oV,  1.  57,  "some  gold,"  and  tq>  XPV<T<?  again,  1.  60,  with 

aSynt.,  p.  29,  5.  2Synt,  p.  26,  12. 

3  To  this  Ostermann  [Jahnii  Ann.  1.  c]  notes,  "jener  Greis,  wie  der  Artikel 
oft  bei  den  Alexandrinern  demonstrative  Bedeutung  hat."  This  note  is  quoted 
(ad  loc.)  by  Fritzsche,  and  Hiller  refers  to  Krueger,  n,  50,  3,  4,  where  the 
Homeric  use  of  the  article  in  such  cases  is  referred  to.  As  a  matter  of  fact  Attic 
Greek  would  have  nothing  else  here  but  6  irptafivs,  and  it  is  scarcely  conceivable 
that  an  Alexandrian  should  interpret  the  article  here  differently  from  an  Attic 
writer.  The  mere  fact  that  epic  influence  can  be  seen  in  the  present  passage  is 
not  sufficient  to  force  an  Homeric  emphasis  upon  the  article. 

4Cholmeley's  comparison  with  6  (rrpaTubras  of  xiv,  56  is  pointless,  unless  he 
intends  6  yauPpds  to  be  taken  in  apposition  with'ASoms. 


34  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

anaphora.),  56,  57  (raynio-Tpia),  60,  66  (row  vttvcov,  the  dream 
just  related. — xxin,  7  (rcov  wvpacov,  implied  in  TroXvfaXrpos, 
rjparo,  1.  1,  cfriXeovTa,  1.  3,  tov  "E/og)t<z,  1.  4),  11,  39,  51,  52,  53, 
60  (TwyaXfia,  of  Eros,  tov  6eov,  1,  58),  63. — The  next  seven 
examples  are  from  epic  idylls:  xxiv,  103,  133; — xxv,  1,  51, 
64,  71,  84; — xxvn,  2,  5  (to  fylXaiia). — Epigram  v  (xiii),  1. 
(ttjv  6eov). 

3.  With  objects  present  to  the  mind,  that  is,  objects  that  are 
referred  to  simply  as  known,  either  from  previous  experience  or 
general  report.  Here  the  anaphoric  power  of  the  article  has  its 
widest  scope.  Minute  analysis  of  this  type  of  anaphora  into 
subsidiary  categories  would  be  unprofitable.  It  is  sufficient  and 
convenient  to  group  under  a  few  principal  heads  cases  that  are 
approximately  alike.1  So  we  may  consider  together  (1)  things  that 
are  set  doion  as  known  or  notorious,  including  the  avafyopa  /car'' 
i^o^rjv  of  Apollonius,  (2)  things  that  are  customary,  proper,  requisite, 
desirable,  (3)  things  that  are  known  and  referred  to  in  their  relation 
to  a  person  or  thing  previously  mentioned  or  implied — the  so-called 
possessive  use  of  the  article.  Under  the  present  category,  then, 
are  included  those  cases  that  come  under  the  first  of  these  three 
divisions.  They  are  the  following  :  I,  6,  9  (rav  oliSa),  11,  82  (a 
Kcopa — Priapus  pretends  to  know  her),  105  (o  ftov/coXos),  152; — 
ii,  74;— in,  4  (two),  29  (two),  40,  43  (two) ;— iv,  4  (two),  ,35, 
36  (ral  Se  yvval^),  37,  58,  61  ;— V,  12  (rav  alya),  42,  97,  123 
(rav  KV/cXdfiivov),  133  (rav  <j)daaav),  135; — VI,  45; — VII,  67, 
78,  136  ff.  (to  .  .  .  vScop,  rol  .  .  .  TeTTiyes,  a  8'  oXoXvycov),  145 
(rol  op-raices)2 — VIII,  87; — x,  15,  21,  44,  54,  55; — XI,  12; — 
XIII,  6,  7  (rav  irXo/cafjiiSa,  with  which  Hylas  is  usually  pictured),3 
16;— xv,  7,  24,  37  (rofr  8>  epyoi^),  43  (two),  52,  63,  77  (rav 
vvov,  quoting  a  proverb  or  custom),  98  ; — xix,  8  ; — xxi,  31  (rav 
aypav,  the  daily  catch),  36  ; — xxix,  37  ; — xxx,  29  ; — Epigram, 


1  See  Krueger,  i,  50,  2,  4. 

2  In  this  description  of  a  scene  witnessed  in  the  past,  and  now  recalled,  the  arti- 
cle is  virtually  a  deixis  transferred  to  the  past.  In  the  same  lines  the  article  is 
also  freely  omitted  with  other  objects. 

3  Theocritus  may  have  had  a  picture  of  the  boy  in  mind.  Cf.  Wilamowitz, 
Textg.,  p.  175,  n.,  and  Naber,  Mnem.  xxxiv,  (1906),  p.  169. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

VI  (xx),  6.  Cases  occur  where  the  article  is  used  with  a.  noun 
whose  identity  is  first  explained  in  the  following  words.  The 
mind  of  the  speaker  anticipates  his  speech  and  lets  the  article  point 
forward  to  the  definition  that  is  to  follow.  This  definition  usually 
takes  the  form  of  a  relative  clause.1  In  Theocritus  we  note  the 
following:  in,  21,  tov  arec^avov  .  .  .  tov  .  .  .  (pvXdcraa) ; — IV,  28, 
40; — xxn,  64; — xxni,  58; — xxv,  211.  Once  we  find  the 
article  pointing  forward  to  infinitives  :  xvi,  60,  6  po^Oo?  .  .  . 
/nerpelv  .  .  .  vl^eiv  .  .  .  irapeXOelv.  The  article  is  used  with  similar 
prolepsis,  but  without  a  following  relative  clause  or  equivalent,  in 
Epigram,  vin  (xvn),  1.  "A  re  <fxovd  Awpios  %(ovr]p  6  tclv 
KcofjLG)8Lav  I  evpcbv  'E7rt%a/0fio?.  ; A  (fycovd  is  defined  only  when  we 
reach  rav  tcwpLwhiav. 

4.  With  things  thai  are  marked  as  customary,  proper,  etc.  Tho 
this  use  of  the  article  is  merely  a  subdivision  of  the  previous 
category,  as  was  said  above,  it  is  given  a  separate  paragraph  for 
convenience.     The  same  is  true  of  the  following  division. 

II,  1 ,  ral  Sdcfrvai,  ra  (f>i\rpa,  2,  rav  /ceXefiav,  the  ingredients  and 
implement  for  preparing  the  love  charm  in  the  mystic  rite  about  to 
begin  ;  33,  ra  iriTvpa,  the  husks  essential  to  such  rites. — vin,  86, 
ra  SiSa/crpa,  the  requisite  pay  for  instruction  (1.  85). — XI,  17  to 
<f>dp/jLafcov,  the  proper  remedy,  with  anaphora  also  to  line  1  fF. — 
xiv,  52,  to  (f)dpfia/cov. — xxn,  64,  6  (jllo-Oos,  the  required  pay ; 
anticipating  the  relative  clause  oo  /cev  ere  TrWoi/xev. — xxni,  24,  to 
<t>dpfjLa/cov  .  .  to  \a6os,  in  both  cases  "the  longed  for,"  and  to 
Xa^o?  may  be  looked  upon  as  an  appositive  to  to  c^dp/xaKov;  38, 
ftpaxy  fcXavaov,  e7rto-7retcra?  8e  to  Bd/cpv.  Fritzsche  aptly  compares 
Horace,  Od.  n,  6,  23  :  "  debita  sparges  lacrima  favillam  " ;  but 
the  article  also  refers  to  the  Sd/cpv  implied  in  Kkavaov,  and  so  Lang 
renders,  "weep  a  little;  and  when  thou  hast  made  this  libation  of 
thy  tears." 

5.  The  article  with  possessive  value.  This  use  of  the  article 
seems  to  have  belonged  to  the  early  language,  and  if  some  of  the 
examples  formerly  cited  for  Homer  have  been  replaced  by  conjecture 
with  forms   of  the   personal   and  possessive   pronouns,2  it   seems 

1  Krueger,  i,  50,  2,  7.  2  See  Vogrinz,  p.  194. 


36  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

impossible  to  deny  it  to  Homer  altogether.1  Here,  as  in  other 
uses  of  the  Greek  article,  the  failure  of  our  own  definite  article 
may  cause  over  translation,  whereby  the  Greek  article  is  unduly 
emphasized.  The  Greek  grammarians  themselves,  as  we  have  seen, 
made  no  special  provisions  for  this  use  of  the  article  apart  from 
the  general  head  under  which  it  really  belongs,  namely  avacfropd.2 
The  definite  article  in  modern  English  may  also  be  used  in  this 
way,  but  we  are  restricted  to  a  few  old  combinations.  We  may 
render  <  fie  >>  twv  a>rcov  KaOekolcra  [Id.  v,  133),  "taking  me  by 
the  ears,"  and,  "  I  have  a  pain  in  the  head  "  is  perfectly  intelligible 
for  aXye'co  rav  KefyaXdv  (Id.  Ill,  52);  but  our  article  fails  us  when 
we  try  to  translate  So?  rav  xePa  f*01  (^-  xv>  66),  and  we  resort 
to  the  possessive.  Even  the  Greek  article  at  a  later  period  no 
longer  sufficed  to  indicate  possessive  relations.3  When  the  article 
is  used  in  this  sense,  it  is  of  course  necessary  in  order  to  avoid 
ambiguity,  that  the  possessor  be  known,  and  consequently,  in  most 
cases,  the  person  of  the  possessor  is  directly  indicated  in  the 
preceding  context,  most  frequently  as  subject  or  object  of  the  verb, 
or  as  a  dative  of  interest.4  No  cases  are  cited  below  from  epic 
idylls.  In  the  other  idylls,  particularly  the  Doric,  the  article 
appears  freely  in  this  function,  especially  with  names  of  parts 
of  the  body,  articles  of  dress,  and  nouns  of  relationship. 
With  parts  of  the  body  the  possessive  article  has  been  noted 
in  thirty-nine  (39)  cases,  its  omission  in  forty-six  (46),  of  which 
twenty-one  (21)  are  prepositional  phrases,  and  a  number  of  others 
formulae  like  irocral  %opevo-ai,  TroBas  eX/cet?,  %etpo?  e^ayjrafie'va. 
It  may  be  of  interest  also  to  note  that  the  possessive  article  is  rare 
in  narrative  portions.  Dialogue  furnishes  most  of  the  examples, 
for  here  there  is  least  danger  of  ambiguity. 

a.  With  parts  of  the  body :  afi<\>r}v  (Aeol.  =  civxvv)  xxx,  28 
yao-Trjp  xxi,  41 ; — yeveiov  VI,  36,  XX,  8  ; — yews  XXIX,  33 
Sd/crvXos  viii,  23; — /ce(j>d\Ti  in,  52,  xi,  70,  xx,  12,  xxi,  13 
fcpaBta  XXIII,  34  ; — /cporacjios  XI,  9  ; — fierooirov  XX,  24  ; 5 — fiveXos 

1  See  Foerstemann,  p.  28.  2  Compare  above,  Introd. 

3  See  Volker,  o.  c.,  p.  7,  and  footnote  5.  4Cf.  Foerstemann,  1.  c. 

5  (ifiol)  Xevicbv  rb  fitrcoTrov  <?7r'  bfypticn  Xdfitre  fieXaipais.  In  the  same  self-descrip- 
tion we  find  without  the  article  vrr/pav,  xcurcu,  -rrepi  KpoTCMpoiai,  in'  ocppvai,  6fi/xara, 
but  t6  (rrdfia,  and  again  £k  ctoh&twp,  (pupa. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  37 

xxx,  21  ; — bhovs  vi,  37  ; — ofi/xa  v,  36  ; — 6w%  IV,  54; — crrrXd  iv, 
36;— oS<%>  viii,  69;— ofc  (<B?)  v,   133  ;— wj>0a\/juk   xi,  53;— 
TrapavaXXX,  5  (?); — 7rou?  XX,  12;  XXX,  3  (?)  ; — Trpoacoirov II,  140 
xxiii,  13  ; — TTcoyoyv  x,  40 ; — o-To/ia  I,  146  ;  viii,  82;  xi,  9,  56 
XX,  26  (v.  1.  teal  o-TOfia);  XXI,  57 ; — o-cfrvpov  iv,  51 ; — %€t/>  x,  55 
xv,  66  ;  xxi,  9,  48  ;  xxvn,  18. 

The  following  group  of  words,  used  with  the  possessive  article, 
tho  not  to  be  classed  as  parts  of  the  body,  may  best  be  treated 
here:  yvayfjiv,  in  the  sense  of  "mind"  or  " judgment "  xxi,  62, 
tv  8y  &  %eve  .  .  .  epeiSe  rav  yv(bfjiav  ;l  I8ea  XXX,  14; — fcdWos 
II,  83  ; — poppet  xx,  14  ;  xxiii,  2  ; — voos,  xxi,  32. 2 — irvev^a 
"breath  "  viii,  76  ; 3 — o-Qivos  I,  44  ; — 779071-09,  " character,  disposi- 
tion ; "  x,  37  ;  xxiii,  2  ; — cfrprjv  n,  19  ;  XI,  72; — <f>covd  x,  37  ; — 
i/rin^a  xi,  52 ;  xv,  4,4  37  ;  xxiii,  55 ;  xxvn,  61. 

b.  As  with  parts  of  the  body,  so  with  articles  of  dress :  II,  53, 
156  ;  in,  25 ;  v,  15  ;  xv,  21  (two),  39  (two) ;  xxvn,  54. 

c.  With  nouns  of  relationship.  Where  the  reference  is  clear 
the  article  may  be  omitted.  The  nouns  then  approach  the  value 
of  proper  names  and  are  similarly  treated.5  In  Theocritus  Attic 
usage  is  generally  followed.  The  proportion  of  omissions  of  the 
possessive  article  with  this  class  of  nouns  is  not  large  in  Doric 
idylls.    Following  are  the  cases  where  the  article  in  the  possessive 

1Hiller  explains:  "firma  mentem  meara,"  and  similarly  "Wuestemann  and 
Hartung.  Kiessling  however  (cf.  Cholmeley,  and  Lang's  translation )  renders  : 
"iam  animum  intende,  scil.  ut  somnum  recte  interpreteris."  Aside  from  other 
considerations,  since  rdp  follows  the  imperative  ri>  .  .  .  epei.de,  it  is  natural  to  under- 
stand it  as  referring  to  the  subject,  that  is  "your."  For  the  possessive  article 
similarly  used  after  an  imperative,  with  reference  to  the  subject  compare  x,  55  ; 
xv,  21,  66  ;  xxvn,  18.  In  two  cases,  in,  3,  and  viii,  63,  where  the  reference  is 
not  to  the  subject  of  the  imperative  but  to  the  speaker,  there  is  no  ambiguity, 
because  the  context  in  each  case  decides. 

2  ed  yap  av  eiK<i£ais  Kara  rbv  vbov.  Whatever  the  true  reading  of  this  troublesome 
line,  rbv  vbov  is  ' '  the  mind  "  of  the  subject  of  the  verb.  The  same  phrase  is  else- 
where anarthrous  with  or  without  a  possessive  pronoun. 

3 ' KbeV  a  <po}va  ras  irbprtos,  a80  rb  7rvevp.a.  The  presence  of  ras  wbprios  and  its 
own  position  indicate  that  rb  irvevfia  is  "her  breath."  Fritzsche's  objection  to 
this  interpretation,  'obstat  connexus  versus  sequentis,'  would  have  to  be  applied 
as  well  to  the  preceding  words.     He  interprets  rb  irvev/xa,  l  aer  spiritu  motus,' 

4  c5  ras  dXefidro}  \pvxa.s.     See  Wilamowitz,  Textgeschichte,  p.  48,  note  1, 

5  See  Krueger,  50,  m,  3,  A.  8.     Kuehner,  §  462,  d. 


38  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

sense  is  prefixed:  fidrn p  iy,  9;  vm,  16;  x,  58;  XI,  54,  67; 
xix,  7  ; — Trarrjp  vui,  20  ; — re/cwv  (which  had  become  thoroughly 
substantivized  and  was  treated  as  a  real  noun)  xv,  47.  Here 
we  may  put  also  heairoTn^  v,  10  and  SovXa  II,  94.  In  xv,  148 
X<tsvr)p  is  not  "  my  husband  "  but,  with  anaphora  to  Ato/cXet'Sa?, 
"that  man." 

Outside  the  sphere  of  words  above  enumerated,  Theocritus  is 
free  in  the  use  of  the  article  with  possessive  value.  The  identity 
of  the  possessor  is  usually  clear  from  the  context.  Cases  occur, 
however,  especially  in  dialogue,  where  the  possessor  is  not  directly 
indicated  to  the  reader.  This  is  the  more  common  in  dialogue, 
because  the  reference  was  at  once  clear  to  the  listener,  and  the 
possessor  need  not  be  indicated  to  him  with  such  exactness.  The 
examples  need  simply  be  listed.  They  are  the  following :  i,  14, 
62,  87,  120,  121  ;  n,  64,  127;  in,  3,  7;  iv,  13,  26,  28  ;  v,  28, 
85,  87,  88,  89,  96,  105,  107,  127  ;x  vi,  2,  6,  9,  10,  21,  29  ;  vn, 
65,  87  ;2  vm,  35,  63,  70,  72,  73 ;  x,  2  (?),  3,  6,  34 ;  xi,  12,  39, 
44,  74,  80;  xn,  20,  23;  xv,  55,  130;  xx,  28,  40,  42,  44; 
xxi,  14  (twice),  27,  33,  67  ;3  xxni,  13,  18  {rav  ^Xidv, 
"its  doorpost"  with  reference  to  fieXdOpoLs) ;  xxvn,  33,  37 4; 
xxviii,  23. 

6.  The  article  with  proper  names,  a.  With  names  of  persons. 
Few  chapters  in  the  study  of  the  Greek  article  have  caused  more 
difficulty  than  that  of  articular  proper  names,  and  especially  names 
of  persons.  Recent  years  have  seen  the  publication  of  a  number 
of  important  contributions  in  this  special  field,  which  are  devoted 
to  the  examination  of  individual  authors  and  departments.  Impor- 
tant data  have  been    brought   to  light  which    contribute    to   an 


1  d  7rcus  .  .  .  rq.  K&\iri5i.   i '  my  girl. ' '     So  Fritzsche,  noting  :  ' '  alii  minus  apte 
puellas  in  universum  articulo  signincari  existimant." — t£  icdXindi  is  "  her  pitcher. " 
2rds  KaXds  alyas.     Cf.  schol.  :  ras  tcaXas  <rov  a?7as. 

3  Kal  tois  x/>u<ro?0-ti>  ovetpoLs.  Kal  tois  is  Scaliger's  correction  (ap.  Ameis,  p.  16) 
for  the  vulg.  kclLtoi.  Hermann  (ap.  Fritzsche)  wrote  Kal  cots,  and  so  Fritzsche 
and  Hiller.  The  article  is  desirable  not  only  with  possessive  meaning,  but  also 
with  anaphora,  \ '  those  golden  dreams  of  yours. ' ' 

4  rd  5£  ircfoa  /caXd  vofxeOoj.  The  reference  of  t&  is  ambiguous.  With  vopevta  in 
the  present  it  is  best  taken  "iny  flocks,"  with  *a\d  adverbial  as  in  1.  47. 


The  Article  in   Theocritus.  39 

understanding  of  the  sphere  of  the  articular  proper  name,  and 
consequently,  of  the  stylistic  effect  of  its  free  employment.1 

The  sphere  and  effect  of  the  articular  proper  noun  have  been 
stated  in  their  general  aspect  by  Professor  Gildersleeve  in  the 
American  Journal  of  Philology,  xi,  483  ff.  The  facts  to  be  noted 
,  are  the  following.  We  know  that  classical  Greek  poetry  outside 
of  comedy  had  little  use  for  the  articular  proper  name.  It  is 
excluded  from  Homer  and  rare  in  lyric  poetry — the  sole  instance 
in  Pindar  (Pythia,  x,  57)  being  accounted  an  excusable  Dorism.2 
In  tragedy  it  is  so  rare  that  Valckenaer 3  was  led  to  deny  its  use 
in  that  department.  In  Aristophanes  there  is  a  freer  use,  so  that, 
tho  the  lyric  choruses  admit  articular  proper  names  of  persons  in 
only  two  places  (Lys.  1213,  Ran.  422),  according  to  Fuller,4  in 
dialogue  they  are  by  no  means  rare.  In  prose,  Plato  leads  with 
the  freest  use  of  articular  proper  names.  He  is  followed  by  the 
historians,  while  the  orators,  restricted  by  official  speech,  stand 
last.  The  meaning  of  all  this  can  be  nothing  else,  than  that  the 
sphere  of  the  articular  proper  name  is  to  be  sought  in  those  depart- 
ments and  authors  that  approach  the  speech  of  everyday  life. 
The  home  of  the  articular  proper  name  is  familiar  language,  and 
its  tone,  therefore,  where  it  is  freely  used,  is  familiar.  The  mere 
fact  that  the  article  regularly  accompanies  proper  names  in  modern 
Greek  is  itself  an  indication  of  this,  for  it  is  in  the  popular  usage 
of  the  earlier  language  that  the  origin  of  modern  uses  is  to  be 
sought. 

In  Theocritus  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  again  between  the 
epic  (Ionic),  and  Doric  (bucolic)  idylls.    In  the  former  Theocritus 

!In  the  domain  of  prose,  L.  Herbst,  Philologus  xl,  374  ff.,  for  Thucydides 
(see  A.  J.  P.  ii.  541)  ;  Fr.  Blass,  Eh.  M.  xliv,  Iff.  (see  A.  J.  P.  xi,  107), 
for  Demosthenes ;  C.  Schmidt,  "  De  articnlo  in  nominibus  propriis  apud  Atticos 
scriptores  pedestres,"  Kiel,  1890  (see  A.  J.  P.  xi,  484,  note)  ;  H.  Kallenberg,  in 
two  studies,  Part  i,  Philol.  xlix  (N.  F.  hi)  1890,  515  ff.,  "  Der  Artikel  bei 
Namen  von  Landern,  Stadten  und  Meeren  in  der  griechischen  Prosa,"  n,  Berlin 
Program  1891,  "Der  Artikel  bei  i,  Flussnamen  und  n,  Gebirgsnamen  ;"  and  Ad. 
Zucker,  Niirnberg  Pr.  1899,  for  Xenophon's  Anabasis.  In  poetry  there  is  the 
study  of  Uckerraann,  "Der  Artikel  bei  Eigennamen  in  den  Komodien  des  Aristo- 
phanes," Berlin  Pr.  1892,  which  has  remained  uncompleted. 

2Cf.  Prof.  Gildersleeve,  ad  loc.  3In  a  note  to  Euripides,  Phoen.  147. 

4  Diss.,  p.  35. 


40  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

in  general  closely  follows  his  model,  and  admits  the  article  with 
names  of  persons  only  in  the  following  instances :  1)  with  an 
attribute,  xm,  7  (not  in  the  epyllion  proper) ;  xvn,  26  ;  xxn, 
34,  140;  xxvi,  1  j1  xn,  35  (Ionic  "lyric) ;  and  2)  with  national 
appellatives,  XXIV,  1,  a  MiSeans,  'AXtc/Jirjva;  xil,  14,  6®eo-aa\6<;, 
generic;  xxv,  180,  ov%  'EXi/cnOev  'A%ato?,  with  anaphora.  This 
is  a  total  of  nine  cases  against  one  hundred  and  fifty-one,  where 
the  article  is  omitted  (vocatives  and  predicates  not  being  counted). 
The  Aeolic  (lyric)  group  shows  but  one  articular  name  of  a  person, 
with  an  attributive  (xxviii,  17),  against  five  without  the  article.2 
In  the  Doric  idylls  the  situation  is  different.  There  Theocritus 
approximates  the  familiar  language  of  the  naive  shepherd,  and 
we  find  articular  proper  names  of  persons  used  with  considerable 
freedom.  Taking  the  Doric  group  as  a  whole,  we  find  sixty-eight 
proper  names  of  persons  with  the  article,  one  hundred  and  eighty 
without  the  article,  or  27.41  f0  articular.  With  the  Doric  idylls 
it  is  interesting  to  compare  the  mimes  of  TIerondas.  A  single 
careful  count  covering  the  first  seven  mimes  showed  eighty-five 
anarthrous  names  of  persons,  and  twenty-two  in  articular  combina- 
tions, or  20.5  %  articular.  Of  these  twenty-two,  nine  are  of  the 
type  o  Mara/civr)?  tt}?  Marauciov  ^vWos,  where  the  proper  name 
stands  rather  in  appositional  relation  to  the  elliptical  phrase  o  (17) 
+  genitive ;  and  four  others  are  national  appellatives.  It  is 
evident  then,  that  in  Herondas  the  articular  proper  name  is  less 
frequent  than  in  the  Doric  idylls  of  Theocritus.  In  the  epigrams 
included  in  this  study  no  articular  names  of  persons  occur. 

Ameis  (p.  14  f.)  in  discussing  the  articular  proper  name  in 
Theocritus  simply  accepts  for  our  author  the  rule  posited  by 
Hermann  : 3  "  Nimirum  ut  articulus  apponatur  ad  illud  nomen, 
quod  aut  loquenti  vel  ei  quicum  is  loquitur  in  animo  versatur,  aut 
fama  et  sermonibus  hominum  celebratum  est" — the  familiar 
anaphora, — and  remarks,  p.  23,   "Nominibus  propriis  saepe  vix 

1  In  each  of  these  cases  strict  epic  interpretation  makes  the  article  demonstra- 
tive. 

2  For  names  of  divinities  see  below. 

3  Euripides,  Iphig.  AuL,  praef,,  p.  xvii. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  41 

ullo  discrimine  additur  et  adimitur."  That  anaphora  does  play  a 
part  is  true,  and  the  categories  "the  famous,"  "the  aforesaid,"  etc., 
may  in  some  cases  be  applied,  but  no  law  can  be  laid  down  which 
will  categorically  explain  Theocritean  usage.  It  lies  wholly  within 
the  poet's  choice,  whether  or  not  he  shall  use  the  article,  and  the 
metre  may  in  some  cases  be  the  deciding  element.  The  best  that 
can  be  said  is  that  where  the  article  is  used,  the  tone  is  generally 
that  of  familiar  reference  to  persons  either  belonging  to  the  small 
circle,  rural  or  urban,  in  which  the  speaker  moves,  or  familiarly 
known  to  the  speaking  characters  by  current  report,  or  homely 
legend  and  superstition. 

The  occurrences  will  be  taken  up  by  idylls,  and  the  first  to  be 
considered  are  those  unaccompanied  by  attributives. 

Id.  I,  100,  %<w  Adcfrvis  7roTa/jLei/3eTo.  Aa</>w?,  the  subject  of 
this  shepherd  song,  "  ra  AdfotBos  akyea"  occurs  but  once  more  in 
this  idyl  with  the  article,  line  140.  The  name  occurs  eight  times 
(exclusive  of  vocatives)  without  the  article  :  1.  19  in  the  title  "to, 
AdcfrvLSos  a\<yea  ;  at  the  beginning  of  the  song,  1.  66  ;  as  predicate, 
120,  121  ;  in  apposition,  113,  116  ;  and  where  Daphnis  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  third  person,  103,  135. — I,  109,  wpaios  x&8covi<>. 
This  is  the  only  mention  of  Adonis  in  the  idyl,  and  the  line  is  open 
to  question.  Anchises,  another  favorite  of  Aphrodite  is  mentioned 
in  line  106  without  the  article.  Both  were  familiar  figures  in 
shepherd  lore  and  might  with  equal  propriety  have  the  article. 
The  article  with  "ASavis  may  be  contemptuous.  Besides  the  nine 
anarthrous  forms  already  quoted  for  this  idyl  we  find  (dvpaios  (65) 
and  Aio/z^Seo?  (112). 

Id.  in,  1.  tclv  ' AfiapvWcSa,  the  Amaryllis  of  the  speaker's 
dreams  and  hopes,  almost  "  my  Amaryllis." — 2.  o  TiTvpos. — 41, 
a  8'  ' AraXdvra,  47,  coSoovls.  In  these  lines  (40  to  51)  five 
mythological  parallels  are  related.  In  the  first  we  find  'liriropbevr)^ 
(40)  without  the  article,  y  Arakavra  with  the  article  in  a  contrast ; 
in  the  second  Me\a^7rou?  (43),  itself  anarthrous,  is  preceded  by 
the  apposition  6  /jbavris,  while  Pero  is  described  as  a  8e  .  .  .  /jLarrjp 
a  yapieaaa  Treplfypovos  'AXc^eo-fcySot?;?  (44/45)  ;  in  the  third  parallel 
we  find  "ASft)w?  with  the  article  (47).  The  formula  athe  famous," 
"  storied,"  etc.,  might  do  for  a  S'  ^AraXdvra  and  o  "ASawt?,  but 


42  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

we  have  the  equally  well  known  'liriro^evrj^,  MeXd/Jurov^  and 
'A\(£ea-£/3(H?7??  as  well  as  Biaz/ros  (44)  and  'IacrtWa  (50)  without 
the  article. 

Id.  IV,  21,  t<m  AafjL7rpid8a. — Id.  v,  88.  a  KXeap terra,  the  only 
mention  of  her  name  in  the  idyl. — 90  o  Kpa-rtSa?.  In  both 
cases  a  possessive  translation  will  approximate  the  tone  of  the 
article. — Id.  VI,  6.  fldXXei  tol  I ioXixfyafie  to  ttoi/jlvlov  a  TaXdreua 
|  fiaXoco-iv.  In  this  as  in  the  other  Polyphemus  idyl,  TaXdreia 
always  has  the  article  except  xi,  76,  TaXdretav  .  .  .  aXXav, 
"  another  Galatea.'' — 42.  rbv  Adcfrviv  6  Aa/Wra?  i(f>C\rjae.  Else- 
where in  the  idyl  these  names  are  anarthrous  (11.  1,  5,  20,  44)  save 
Aa^yt?  once,  1.  1,  where  it  has  the  appositive  6  fiovicoXos  added. 
— Id.  vn,  55.  tov  AvklSclv,  "  hunc  hominem,  me,  Lycidan," 
(Fritzsche) — but  this  is  the  only  passage  in  which  the  name  of  the 
person  thus  used  for  the  speaker  himself  has  the  article.1 — 72.  6 
Be  Tn-f/309.2  73.  t&s  Be^ea?,  her  namely  of  the  familiar  Daphuis 
legend,  (v.  1.  %evLa<$  p.  s.,  %avQas  v.  1.  in  schol.). — Id.  VIII,  8.  %a> 
Adifivis.  Except  here  and  verse  1,  where  we  have  Ad<f)vi8i  ra 
%apievTi,  this  name  is  anarthrous  throughout  the  idyl  (5,  31,  36, 
38  =  670),  71,  92)  and  the  name  of  the  other  shepherd,  MevdX/cas 
never  has  the  article  (2,  5,  30,  32,  33  --=  iyeb,  39,  62).  In  line  8  we 
have  a  contrast,  but  we  have  contrast  as  well  in  other  cases  where 
the  article  does  not  appear,  so,  5,  31,  71.  Daphnis  is  referred  to 
familiarly  with  the  article,  and  of  the  two  singers  he  was  the 
more  widely  known  and  more  famous  (v.  92).3  Id.  xi.  8.  rds 
TaXareias.  13.  rav  TaXdretav — "that  Galatea  of  his/'  cf.  to  VI, 
6,  above. — Id.  XIV,  31.  a  Be  Kwio-tca  |  e/cXaev.  It  is  her  lover 
who  is  speaking.  He  has  previously  referred  to  her  as  a  xapieaaa 
KvvLcr/ca  (8)  and  a  Be  (21).  Here  the  noun  stands  in  a  strong 
contrast  and  a  Be  is  almost  demonstrative. — Other  articular  names 
in  this  idyl  are  proper  adjectives,  and  names  accompanied  by 
attributives.  It  may  be  noted  that  of  the  twelve  anarthrous  names 
nine  occur  in  the  long   speech   of  Aeschines. — Id.  xv,  23.    tov 

Compare  for  anarthrous  forms,  1,  103;  v,  9,  14,  86,  (Ad/cwi>),   19,  70,  150, 
(Kofidras)  ;  vii,  96  ;  VI 11,  33,  38. 
2  See  Wilamowitz,  Textg.,  p.  165. 
3Cf.  Leutsch,  Philol.  Anz.  11,  515.     Wilamowitz,  Textg.,  p.  234. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  43 

"AScoviv,  here  "the  Adonis,"  i.  e.  the  spectacle,  celebration.  Of 
the  ten  occurrences  of  this  name  in  Theocritus  (exclusive  of  four 
vocatives),  seven  in  this  idyl,  and  I,  109  ;  in,  47  ;  xx,  35,  there 
is  but  one  lackiug  the  article,  namely  line  111  of  this  idyl.  The 
other  occurrences  of  the  name  in  Id.  XV  follow :  96,  tov  "ASeoviv 
aeiSew,  "the  Adonis  song"  ;  102.  olov  tol  tov"  AScovlv  .  .  .  ayajov 
T£lpai — "thy  (Aphrodite's  1.  101)  Adonis  here."  A  statue  of 
Adonis  was  set  up  at  this  festival  (11.  127-128,  Bekker,  Charikles, 
i,  p.  101).  But  this  fact  will  not  account  for  the  article,  tho 
names  of  statues  regularly  take  the  article  in  Attic  prose  (Schmidt, 
p.  16),  for  Kinrp^j  also  represented  by  a  statue  (1.  128),  is  without 
the  article  in  both  places  where  it  occurs  (128,  131). — Elsewhere 
in  the  idyl  "AScovis,  with  the  article,  is  accompanied  by  attributives. 
— 92.  KopivOiai,  elfies  avcodev,  |  ek  koX  6  BeXXe/oo^wy,  Bellerophon 
whom  the  Corinthians  chose  as  their  special  hero. — Id.  xx,  35. 
/cal  tov  "AScovlv  .  .  .  <f)C\.7)o~ev  (s.  c.  Ku7T/9t9),  (vv.  11.  avTov  vulg., 
Fritzsche,  cett. ;  kclv  tov  Ahrens,  Hiller,  Cholmeley ;  ov  tov, 
Wilamowitz).  Compare  Id.  xv,  above.  Anarthrous  are  JLvvei/ca, 
1,  42,  and  'Ev8v/jl(cov,  37. 

A  few  cases  follow  where  the  article  is  used  with  proper 
adjectives  to  refer  to  persons :  II,  96,  o  MvvSlos  ;  xn,  14,  6 
©ecro-aXo?,  generic,  as  o'AfivfcXaid^cov,  1.  13;  XIV,  12,  30;  XV, 
97.  In  vn,  71  where  the  article  is  omitted  with  a  national 
appellative  in  the  singular,  'A^a/weu?  was  probably  the  man's 
name.  In  other  cases  the  proper  adjective  with  the  article  stands 
in  apposition  with  the  name  of  the  person  :  n,  29 ;  v,  2,  72,  73 ; 
xxiv,  1  ;  or  with  an  attributive  added,  xxv,  180,  ovg  'EXi/crjOev 
'A%ato?  (with  anaphora,  referring  to  1.  165). 

Cases  where  the  proper  name  with  the  article  is  attended  by  an 
appositional  noun  are  comparatively  rare.  When  the  proper  name 
precedes,  it  is  set  down  as  well-known  and  the  apposition  is  added 
with  little  emphasis  :l  in,  31,  a  Tpacco  .   .   .  /coo-/civ6fjLavTi<;.2 — v, 

1  See  Kuehner,  §  462,  A.  Anm.  1. 

2  For  this  troublesome  line  see  Wilamowitz,  Textg.  p.  135,  where  the  '  Ay poid> 
reading  of  the  mss.  is  plausibly  defended.  In  the  reading  given  above,  the  addi- 
tion of  the  anarthrous  Ko<xKiv6fiavTis  after  the  intervening  raXadea  finds  no  parallel 
in  Theocritus,  tho  Hiller  cites  Iliad,  I,  11,  rbv  Xptio-rjp  TfTl/xrja-1  apTjTfjpa. 


44  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

2,  ttjvov  tov  iroLjieva  tov  Hvftapvrav  |  tov  Ad/cayva,  62,  6  /3ovko\os 
tt>8'  6  Av/ca)7ra$  (v.  1.  o>Se),  143,  tw  Ad/cwvos  tw  Troifievos. — VI,  1, 
Aa/xotVa?  ^a>  Aa(/)w?  o  ftov/coXos,1  23,  o  fxavTis  6  TiJXeyLto?,  con- 
temptuous, "that  fakir  prophet7' — cf.  Odyssey  ix,  509.  In  the 
following  cases  attributives  also  occur :  vn,  152,  rrjvov  tov  iroijueva 
tov  itot  ' "  Avdirw  |  toi>  icpaTepov  TloXvcfra/jLov  ;  compare  XI,  7,  6 
Ku/cXft)-^  6  Trap'  a/xw  |  cop^alos  IIoA,v(£a//,o?,  both  passages  notable 
for  the  heaping  of  articles. — xiii,  7,  ttcuBos  |  tov  ^apievTo^  "TXa. 
— For  articular  proper  names  in  the  nominative  in  apposition  with 
an  expressed  or  implied  vocative  see  below  under  "  article  with 
nouns  in  apposition  with  pronouns.7'  The  proper  names  so  used 
are  names  of  animals. 

With  proper  names  of  persons,  accompanied  by  an  attributive  the 
article  is  used  with  considerable  regularity  in  the  Doric  idylls. 
Of  thirty-two  cases  where  the  article  is  omitted,  twenty-seven 
occur  in  epic  idylls.  The  first  attributive  position  is  the  most 
common  (26  cases),  far  behind  follows  the  third  (6  cases),  and  last 
stands  the  second  (4  cases).  Four  instances  of  the  first  position 
are  found  in  epic  idylls,  and  one  of  the  third  position. 

First  attributive  position:  II,  102-103,  ay  aye  tov  XiTrapo^pcov 
|  ek  efia  ScofjLaTa  AeXfytv,2  115;  in,  32;  V,  4;  VI,  40;  VII, 
39,  118,  152;  vm,  47;  x,  41;  xi,  8;  XII,  35;  xiii,  7  (in  the 
introduction,  not  the  epyllion  proper  where,  excepting  "TXa?  6 
%av06<;,  1.  36,  proper  names  of  persons  are  anarthrous);  xiv,  8, 
30;  xv,  86,  128;  xvn,  26,  (epic);  xvm,  5,  28,  31  ;3  xxn, 
34,  140,  (epic);  XXVI,  1,  (epic);  XXVII,  1,  tclv  ttlvvtclv  'Eke'vav, 
the  only  articular  name  of  a  person  in  the  idyl ;  xxviii,  17. 

1Here  as  in  v,  62  ;  xiii,  5,  (' ApQirpfavos)  and  xv,  83,  {Sivdpwiros),  "Wilamowitz, 
in  his  edition,  prefers  the  readings  without  the  article.  Pairs  in  which  the  first 
name  is  anarthrous,  while  the  second,  always  with  an  attributive  or  apposition, 
has  the  article,  are  found  elsewhere  in  Theocritus  :  vu,  132  ;  xxn,  34,  140  ;  xxvi, 
1,  and  similarly  in  the  (spurious)  epigram  xi  (in),  3. 

2 This  is  the  only  place  in  the  idyl  where  AA.0is  is  articular,  tho  1.  29  we  do  find 
the  name  in  apposition  with  6  Mtvdios.  Most  of  the  occurrences  of  the  name  are 
in  the  ritualistic  chant  of  the  girl  (21,  23  (twice),  26,  29,  50,  53,  62)  and  the  rest 
in  the  address  to  Selene  (narrative)  (77,  149). 

3  Elsewhere  in  the  idyl  'EX^a,  without  an  attributive,  is  anarthrous  ( 25,  37,  48) 
as  MeveXdy,  also  (1.  1), 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  45 

Second  attributive  position :  in,  35  ;  v,  147;  vn,  98;  xv,  127. 

Third  attributive  position.  An  attributive  added  to  a  proper 
name  in  this  position  has  more  often  the  value  of  an  apposition, 
added  loosely  as  an  afterthought.  The  occurrences  follow :  vn, 
105;  vin,  1;  xn,  29;  xiii,  36;  xx,  43.  So  also  once  the 
name  of  a  divinity,  n,  148. 

In  only  five  cases  the  article  is  used  with  the  genitive  of  a 
proper  name  depending  upon  a  noun  of  relationship,  expressed  or 
understood :  II,  G6,  a  rcovfiovXoio  .  .  .  yAva^co.  iv,  21,  rol  t<m 
AafMrrpidSa,  rol  Ba/JLorac.  XV,  97,  a  t<z?  'A/>7eta<?  Ovydrnp ;  with 
names  of  divinities :  Epigram,  n  (vn),  1 ;  VI  (xx),  1. 

b.  With  names  of  divinities.  In  the  case  of  names  of  divinities 
Theocritus  shows  much  the  same  latitude  in  the  use  of  the  article 
as  in  the  case  of  personal  names.  In  fact,  even  excluding  oaths, 
the  proportion  of  articular  names  of  divinities  is  greater  than  that 
of  articular  names  of  persons.  In  the  epic  idylls  the  article  is 
generally  excluded,  as  we  expect.  Four  cases  occur  in  epic  idylls, 
where  the  article  is  used,  but  of  these,  two  in  xiii  are  not  in  the 
epyllion  proper  (11.  1  and  11),  while  the  other  two  stand  together 
(xxvi,  6),  in  a  contrast.  The  Aeolic  group  furnishes  two 
examples,  both  forms  of  "E/ocw?  (xxix,  22  ;  xxx,  25),  and  in  the 
epigrams  considered,  four  such  articular  names  are  found.  In  the 
Doric  group  of  idylls  the  article  is  prefixed  to  names  of  divinities 
with  great  frequency.  Of  the  hundred  and  fourteen  names 
(excluding  oaths  which  will  be  treated  below)  forty-two,  or  36.8 
per  cent,  have  the  article.  The  Nymphs  of  wood  and  water,  the 
Muses,  patrons  of  shepherd  minstrelsy,  Eros  and  Aphrodite, 
themes  of  many  a  shepherd  song,  are  the  divinities  that  figure 
most  prominently  in  the  list.  We  may  believe  that  statues  of 
Nymphs,  of  Priapus,  Pan  and  Dionysus  were  a  common  sight  in 
the  groves  where  many  of  the  pastoral  scenes  are  laid.  And  so 
these  rural  divinities  were  felt  as  ever  present,  even  as  their 
statues — and  statues,  when  named,  regularly  have  the  article.  One 
of  the  common  cases  in  which  the  article  is  used  is  after  verbs  of 
sacrifice  and  analogous  expressions.  (The  alphabetical  arrange- 
ment is  for  convenience.) 


46  The  Artiole  in  Theocritus. 

' AfufyLTphr] :  xxi,  55 — 'AttoXXcqv  :  v,  82  ;  anarthrous  in  epics. 
<S>ot/3o?  and  <1>.  'AiroXXcov  anarthrous,  VII,  101 ;  XVII,  67  ;  Ilataz/, 
articular,  epigram  n  (vn),  1. — 'AfypohiTa :  n,  7;  x,  33;  xix, 
4 ;  anarthrous  four  times  in  Doric  idylls.  Kv7r/)t9,  articular  five 
out  of  thirteen  times:  I,  95,  105;  n,  130,  131.  Epigram  v, 
(xin),  1,  on  a  statue  of  the  goddess.  Kvirpoyeveta  anarthrous, 
xxx,  31.  Uacfria  articular  :  xxvn,  14,15,  55.  Kvde'peia  artic- 
ular: in,  46;  xxiii,  16.— 'Ao>?  :  n,  148;  xiii,  11  ;  anarthrous 
xviii,  26  (?). — A^eo:  vii,  3.  AafjLarrjp  anarthrous,  vn,  32,  155. 
— Atowcro? :  XX,  33  (?)  ;  XXVI,  6  ;  tg>?  rpels  (sc.  ftwixovb)  to, 
'ZepeXa,  to>?  evvea  tw  Aiovvaa> ;  anarthrous,  xxvi,  9,  27,  33,  37 
(epic). — 'E/cara:  n,  12. — "Ejo&>?  :  i,  97;  tov  "Epcora,  spoken  by 
his  mother  (but  1.  98 :  vE/9<wto?  .  .  .  apyaXeco).  n,  7,  6  t'  "Epw?, 
with  a  touch  of  bitterness,  in,  15,  rov^'Epcora;  the  disappointed 
lover  speaks,  x,  20,  axftpovTiaTos  "E/jo)?,  again  a  lover  speaking. 
— xiii,  1;  xxiii,  4;  xxvn,  19;  xxix,  22;  xxx,  25.  Anar- 
throus as  proper  noun  "E/>a)?  occurs  eight  times. — Zev? :  IV,  43, 
the  sky-god ;  epigram,  VI  (xx),  1  ;  anarthrous  thirty-seven  times, 
twenty-five  of  these  in  epic  idylls. — "Hpa  :  IV,  22  ;  anarthrous 
three  times,  once  in  Doric. — Moio-ai :  I,  9,  20,  ra?  ftovicoXiKas 
MotVa?,  144;  v,  80 ;  ix,  32,  a  Molaa  icai  <b§ay  "  my  muse;"  xi, 
6  ;  anarthrous  sixteen  times,  seven  of  these  in  epic,  one  in  epigram, 
and  six  in  Id.  vn.  UiepiSes,  with  the  article  XI,  3.  In  epigram 
I,  2,  we  find  rah  'TLXt/ccovido-i. — NvfjLcjzai:  v,  12,  54,  140,  149. 
In  this  idyl  statues  of  nymphs  may  have  been  part  of  the 
setting.1  Nvficjxu,  (Nu/nfa,  viii,  93),  is  anarthrous  four  times  in 
Doric  idylls  (excluding  vocatives  and  oaths).  In  I,  22,  we  find 
rav  Kpavaiav,  with  reference  to  a  statue. — naz/:  I,  16;  V,  58. 
Besides  these  two  occurrences  Yidv  is  articular  seven  times  in  oaths, 
for  which  see  below.  It  is  anarthrous  but  twice  :  I,  3,  /xera  llara, 
and  iv,  63,  in  the  plural. — IlXoOro?  :  x,  19,  avrd?  6  II.  (clvtos  = 
"alone"). — IIpir}7ro$:  I,  21,  (a  statue),  81,  fy&  6  U ;  the  speaker 
sits  before  a  statue  of  the  god. — Upoarev^  :  viii,  52  (?). — ^lefieXa : 
xxvi,  6,  (see  above  under  AtoVuo-o?) ;  anarthrous  xxvi,  35.2 

1  See  Wuestemann,  to  1.  17,  and  cf.  Fritzscke. 

3  Of  the  names  of  divinities  used  with  the  article,  nine  are  accompanied  by  an 


The  Article  in  Theocritus,  47 

Names  of  divinities  in  oaths.1  1.  TiorC  with  the  genitive.  In 
Theocritus  (and  the  other  bucolic  poets,  see  Ameis,  p.  37)  the 
noun  in  this  form  of  oath  always  has  the  article,  tho  in  comedy 
it  is  sometimes,  in  tragedy  always,  anarthrous  (Krueger,  I,  68, 
37,  2):  I,  12;  iv,  50;  V,  74;  XV,  70.  So  once  with  val  ttoti, 
in  v,  70. 

2.  Nat'  with  the  accusative.  In  this  common  form  the  name  is 
anarthrous  twice,  once  with  a  common  noun  in  an  epic  idyl, 
XXIV,  73,  >val  yap  ifiov  yXv/cv  (jzeyyos,  and  val  Mot/oa?,  II,  160. 
In  the  following  cases  the  article  is  used:  n,  118;  iv,  47; 
V,  141  ;  vi,  21  ;  xv,  14;  xxvn,  20,  50. 

3.  Ov  and  ov  fid  with  the  accusative.  In  four  cases  the  noun 
is  anarthrous  :  iv,  17,  29  ;  vn,  39  ;  xi,  29.  It  is  articular  in 
y,  14,  17  ;  xxvn,  35.  Once  a  common  noun  is  used  :  vi,  22, 
kov  fi    e\a6\  ov  top  ifiov  rov  eva  yXv/cvv,  wwep  oprj/u.2 

c.  Names  of  peoples  in  the  plural.  Theocritus  in  general  ob- 
serves the  rule,  according  to  which  they  are  anarthrous.  Of  the 
forty-seven  occurrences  of  names  of  this  class  (only  nine  in  Doric 
idylls)  only  two  have  the  article  :  XV,  93.  Iie\oirovva<ncrTl 
XaXeO/xe?  ■  |  hcopiahev  8'  ef eari,  So/cw,  rot?  AcopLeeao-i,  i  we  are 
Corinthians  (Dorians,  1.  91),  and  who  may  speak  Dorian  if  not 
(we)  the  Dorians?' — The  other  case  is  a  patronimic  in  the  plural : 
XV,  141,  ol  en,  wporepov  KairCQai  /cat  Aev/caXccoves. 

d.  Names  of  cities  in  general  do  not  require  the  article.3  In 
Theocritus  the  article  is  used  only  in  two  passages  in  Doric  idylls : 
IV,  32,  alveco  rdv  re  "Kporcova  ■  Ka\a  ttoXl?  •  d  re  Zd/cvvOos. — 
XV,  126,  a  MtXaro?  ipei.      Without  the  article  such  names  occur 


adjective  in  the  first  attributive  position  (i,  20  ;  n,  12  ;  m,  46  ;  x,  20  ;  xi,  6  ; 
xni,  11  ;  xx,  33  (?)  ;  xxi,  55 ;  xxx,  25) ,  one  with  an  adjective  in  the  third 
position  (n,  148). 

1  Fuller,  p.  74  ;  Ameis,  p.  37  ;  Krueger,  50,  5,  9 ). 

2  Fritzsche  interprets  :  "  nee  me  latuit,  non  (latuit)  hunc  meum  unicum  dulcem 
(oculum),"  and  so  most  editors.  Two  passages  in  Herondas,  cited  ad  loc.  by 
Cholmeley  for  a  different  purpose,  support  the  interpretation  which  makes  oi  rbv 
iixbv  k.  t.  i.  an  oath,  viz.,  V,  59,  /id  toijtovs  tovs  860  ;  vi,  23,  fia  rotirovs  roils 
yXvKias,  sc.  6<pda\ixofc.    Compare  also  the  oath  cited  above  from  the  epic  xxiv,  73. 

3Kallenberg,  Philol.,  xlix,  536;  Blass,  Eh.  M.,  xuv,  13. 


48  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

eighteen   times  in    epic,   eleven   in  Doric,   and  twice  in  Aeolic 
idylls. 

e.  Names  of  rivers.  With  such  names  Theocritus  uses  the 
article  three  times,  in  Doric  idylls,  in  referring  to  neighboring 
streams:  IV,  24;  V,  123  (cf.  124,  ' 1  fie pa  anarthrous);  VII,  1. 
Names  of  rivers  are  anarthrous  eighteen  times  in  Doric,  nine  times 
in  epic,  even  when  iroTafios  is  added,  as  in  vn,  75,  112. 

f.  Names  of  mountains  and  promontories.  With  names  of  this 
class  the  article  is  found  three  times,  twice  with  an  attributive : 
IV,  19;  XI,  47;  once  where  the  name  stands  in  apposition:  IV, 
33,  to  7roTaq>ov  to  Aaiciviov}  Names  of  this  class  are  found 
without  the  article  seventeen  times  in  Doric,  five  in  epic  idylls. 

g.  Names  of  islands  have  the  article  in  two  instances:  I,  125, 
e7rl  vao-ov  tclv  ^iKeXdv ;  XV,  126,  tclv  *2afiiav  <  sc.  vaaov  or 
yav  >.  Such  names  are  anarthrous  twice  in  Doric  idylls,  once  in 
Aeolic  with  raero?,  five  times  in  epic. 

h.  Names  of  countries  are  rare  in  Theocritus  and  never  have 
the  article.  Three  cases  were  found  in  Doric  idylls — xiv,  68 ; 
XVIII,  20,  'AxauSa  yalav,  31. 

i.  Names  of  seas  are  also  rare.  Only  one  example  was  found 
in  Doric  and  that  in  adjective  form,  with  the  article  :  viii,  56, 
tclv  l£itee\dv  t  e?  aka.  The  five  instances  in  epic  all  stand 
without  the  article.  Of  other  bodies  of  water,  a  lake  is  men- 
tioned, xvi,  84,  without  the  article.  A  spring  is  mentioned  with 
the  article,  its  name  in  adjective  form :  v,  126,  a  Su/Sapm? 
<sc.  Trnyq  or  icpdva^>,  but  elsewhere  such  names  are  anarthrous, 
so  :  vii,  6,  115  ;  xvi,  102. 

k.  Names  of  vessels  and  statues,  Attic  Greek  regularly  used 
with  the  article.2  In  Theocritus  the  'Apyco,  ship  of  the  Argo- 
nauts, is  mentioned  in  the  epyllion  of  Id.  xiii,  without  the 
article,  lines  21,  28,  74.  In  Id,  xxn,  27,  *H  fiev  .  .  .  'Apyv, 
the  article  is  substantival.    Names  of  statues  with  the  article  have 


1  But  here  a  temple  of  Hera  on  the  promontory  may  be  meant.  Cf.  Schol.  in 
cd.  Med.  37,  Ziegler,  "  Scholia,"  p.  100,  and  for  iroraQov  (-rrpoarjcpov)  of  a  temple 
cf.  Plut.  Themistocles,  viii,  2,  10. 

2  Schmidt,  pp.  16  and  13. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  49 

already  been  spoken  of  (see  above  under  Nv/4$at  and  Hpiniros). 
In  Id.  XXIII,  58,  we  find  teal  ttotI  top  Seov  rj\0e,  top  vfipio-e, 
where  a  statue  of  Eros  is  meant,  and  in  the  epigrams,  v,  (xiii), 
1,  7)  Kvirpts;  VI,  (XX),  88'  .  .  atvrjp  |  .  .  .  IleLcravSpos;  VIII,  (xvil), 
1,  xwvrjp  6  tclv  KcdfiwhCav  evpeov  'E7r^a/3/ao?,  all  of  which  are 
inscribed  on  statues  of  the  persons  named. 

1.  Names  of  festivals  of  the  gods  are  anarthrous  in  inscriptions 
of  the  best  period.1  In  Theocritus  two  such  names  occur,  one 
with  the  article:  V,  83,  (e/x*  oyiroWcov  faXeei  fieya)  .  .  .  t«  Be 
Kdpvea  (Apollo's  festival)  tcai  8rj  tyepirei.  The  SaXvaia  are 
mentioned,  vn,  3,  without  the  article. 

m.  Names  of  constellations  are  anarthrous  save  in  vii,  54  : 
XcopCav,  and  here  corruption  is  easy  for  /ea>ptW  <Morelius  ed., 
ap.  Ahrens>.  In  the  same  idyl  "A/3/cto?  is  anarthrous  (112). 
Other  names  of  constellations  occur  only  in  epic  idylls. 

n.  Names  of  winds  are  anarthrous  (vn,  53;  ix,  11  ;  x,  46), 
except  in  one  passage  :  vii,  58,  %a\/«/oVe?  GTopeaevvri .  .  .  |  top  re 
NoVoz/  top  t'  JLvpov. 

o.  Tho  not  strictly  to  be  classed  as  proper  names,  the  nouns 
denoting  natural  divisions  of  time  are  by  their  definite  nature  akin 
to  proper  names  and  may  be  treated  here  conveniently.  Here 
belong  primarily  the  names  of  the  seasons  of  the  year.  In  Attic 2 
they  appear  with  or  without  the  article,  the  latter  principally  in 
prepositional  phrases.  In  Theocritus  de'pos  alone  appears  with  the 
article,  in  Doric  idylls :  vi,  16  ;  vin,  78  ;  ix,  12 ;  xxi,  23,  26. 
These  nouns  are  used  freely  without  the  article,  ten  times  in  Doric 
idylls,  and  six  times  in  idylls  of  the  epic  group. 

Like  the  seasons  may  be  viewed  also  the  lesser  divisions  of  time, 
wf  and  a/jLap.s  rAfiap  is  used  but  once  with  the  article,  in  the 
plural :  XXI,  23,  octoi  ras  vvktcls  'ifyaaicov  |  tw  Oepeos  /juvvdetv, 
ore  Ta/jLara  /xarcpa  <f>epei,  Zevs,  where  the  article  is  generic.  Of 
the  twenty  anarthrous  forms  of  this  word,  eight  stand  in  epic 
idylls,  and  of  the  others,  five  are  used  in  prepositional  phrases. 


JSee  Meisterhans,  Grammatik  der  Attischen  Inschriften,*  p.  228. 

2  Krueger,  i,  50,  2,  12. 

3  Krueger,  I,  50.  2,  12  and  47,  2,  A.  1  and  2. 


50  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

Nvf  occurs  more  frequently  with  the  article,  twice  in  the  accusative 
denoting  extent  (anarthrous  once  in  the  plural,  II,  86,  with  he/ca) : 
x,  18  ;  XI,  77.  So  in  comedy  the  article  always  accompanies  vvktcl 
in  this  construction.1  Other  cases  of  vv%  with  the  article  are  :  xi, 
44  (generic)  ;  xxi,  28  ("  the  present  night ")  ;  and  in  the  plural, 
generic,  xxi,  22,  25.  Nuf  is  anarthrous  nine  times  in  Doric 
idylls  in  expressions  of  time. 

p.  Here  may  be  considered  also  xpovos,  OaXaaaa  and  777, 
which,  like  proper  names,  are  definite,  and  do  not  require  the 
article,  unless  a  particular  time,  sea,  or  land  is  indicated.2 
X/00V0?  is  articular  three  times  :  11,  92,  6  he  ^popo?  avvro  (f>ev<ycov, 
possibly  with  anaphora,  "that  time,"  "those  days  of  longing." 
— xiv,  70 ;  xxiii,  28,  both  times  generic,  with  semipersonifica- 
tion. — SdXaaaa  is  found  with  the  article :  VII,  57  (generic,  of 
the  whole  sea,  cf.  Vergil,  Eel.,  IX,  57) — XI,  43,  rav  ry\av/cav  he 
OaXaacrav,  cf.  1.  62,  top  fivdov,  "  that  deep  of  yours."  In  xxi, 
17,  a  he  .  .  .  OaXaao-a,  the  article  is  substantival.  In  Doric 
idylls  OaXaaaa  is  twice  anarthrous  (vi,  27  ;  XI,  49). — r^  (7a)  : 
XI,  79,  ev  tcl  7a  fcrj<yd)v  rt?  (j>aivofjLaL  elfMev.  Here  Ameis  (p.  15), 
and  Fritzsche  :  "in  hac  terra;"  cf.  Hiller.  But  Kiessling  better: 
"  Non  ( in  patria/  sed  in  terra  continent!,  quam  opponit  mari,  in 
quo  Galatea,  aqua  repudiatur,  degit."  But  ev  7a,  "on  land,"  is 
phraseological,  and  the  article  would  ordinarily  be  omitted. — 
XIX,  4,  tclv  yav  eirdra^e,  "  the  ground." — xxx,  3,  ra9  7a?,  "  the 
earth."  With  definite  reference  the  word  is  twice  anarthrous  in 
Doric  idylls  (viii,  53  ;  xvm,  20). 

r.  BacriXev?,  in  the  singular,  referring  to  a  definite  individual, 
occurs  twice  in  Doric  idylls,  with  the  article:  xv,  22,  51. 
^aaiXeia  (BaaiXiao-a)  is  used  once  with  the  article,  XV,  24,  with 
reference  to  Ptolemy's  queen,  while  in  xxvn,  29,  rerj  BaaiXeia 
is  anarthrous  in  the  predicate. 

7.    The  generic   article*     With  a   noun   in   the  singular,  the 

1  Fuller,  p.  46.     Compare  also  the  neuter  adverbial  expressions  rb  fieaauPpivdv, 
etc.,  1,  15 ;  iv,  3 ;  v,  113,  126 ;  x,  48,  and  rb  Kav/ia,  "aestus  per  medios,"  x,  51. 

2  Kuelmer,  §  462,  /.  ;  Krueger,  1,  50,  2,  15. 

3  Compare  above,  introd. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  51 

generic  article  points  out  an  individual  as  the  representative  of  its 
class.  If  the  noun  used  with  the  generic  article  is  of  a  nature  that 
it  can  be  used  only  in  the  singular,  because  the  only  one  of  its  class, 
the  article  shows  that  it  is  conceived  as  a  whole,  complete  in  all 
its  parts.  When  the  generic  article  is»  used  with  a  noun  in  the 
plural,  all  the  individuals  of  the  class  are  taken  together  and 
conceived  in  their  relation  to  one  another,  as  members  of  the  same 
genus.  In  all  cases  there  is  anaphora  in  the  widest  sense  of  the 
term,  since  individuals  or  classes  cannot  be  designated  with  the 
article  unless  they  have  previously  to  some  extent  come  within  the 
experience  of  the  hearer.  Hence,  in  the  definition  of  objects 
entirely  unknown,  the  article  is  unnecessary,  except  in  cases  where 
the  nature  of  the  substantive,  or  the  need  of  distinguishing  subject 
and  predicate,  demands  the  presence  of  the  article.  The  exact 
limitations  of  the  use  of  the  generic  article  cannot  be  defined. 

Theocritus  uses  the  article  with  nouns  in  this  sense  freely  and 
at  times  abundantly.— (Cf.  Id.  I,  133  ff.  ;  vm,  76  IF.  ;  ix,  7-8  ; 
x,  30-31).  The  fact  that  it  is  never  obligatory  (cf.  Gildersleeve, 
"  Problems,"  p.  122),  makes  its  free  employment  in  the  Doric  idylls 
a  characteristic  of  the  naive  speech  of  the  characters  in  these  idylls. 
In  Homer  the  generic  article  is  rare  l  and  so  we  are  not  surprised 
to  find  that  it  does  not  occur  with  nouns  in  the  epic  idylls  of 
Theocritus. 

a.  With  singular  nouns.  This  is  the  more  common  use  in 
Theocritus  and  occurs  as  follows:  I,  72,  87;  132  fif.,  a  he  KaXa 
vdp/acraos ,  a  ttitvs,  G>\a<£o?  (ra?  tcvvas,  rol  oveft>7r€?)  ;  III,  13 ;  IV, 
16  ;  v,  130  ;  VI,  7  ;  VIII,  76  (2),  79-80,  ra  Spvl  (ral  fiakavoi), 
ra  fiaXiSi  (/-taXa),  ra  ftol,  a  ixoa^os,  ra>  ftov/coXcp  (at  fides)  ; 
IX,  7  (2),  8  (2)  ;  x,  28  (2),  30—31,  a  atf,  tclv  /cvtmtov,  6  Xu/co?, 
rav  alya,  a  yepavos,  rwporpov,  47,  52  ;  XII,  14  ;  XV,  58,  rov 
tyvxpov  6<f>Lv  (preceded  by  lttttov  without  article ;  the  article 
visualizes,  hence  emphasizes  the  unpleasant),  83 ;  xxi,  33,  6Q  ; 
xxiii,  28,  29,  30,  31  j  xxvn,  3,  9. 

b.  With  plural  nouns :  I,  80,  rol  (Sovtcii,  rol  7rot/ieVe?,  wttoXol 
(v.  1.   aliroXoi),    90,   135,  136;    n,    35;   m,    26,   53;    IV,    11, 

^rueger,  n,  50,  4. 


52  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

to)?  Xv/eo?  ;  V,  111,  112,  ras  Saavfcep/cos  aXtoireicas ,  114,  tq>? 
Kavddpo?,1  125  ;  VI,  16;  vn,  57,  120;  vm,  38,  44,  48  (2),  49, 
79;  X,  29,  a\X  efJLiras  ev  rot?  arefydvoL?  ra  irpara  Xeyovrai,2 
44 ;  XV,  28,  ai  ya\eai  (perhaps,  however,  a  term  of  reproach 
applied  to  the  awkward*  Eunoe) ;  xxi,  22,  23 ;  xxx,  15  ; 
Berenike  fr.,  2,  ra  SUrua. 

c.  With  abstract  nouns.  As  with  concrete  nouns,  so  with 
abstracts  the  generic  article  is  not  obligatory,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  establish  sharp  differences  everywhere  between  articular  and 
anarthrous  abstracts  as  Kuehner  for  example  does.3  The  article 
with  an  abstract  noun  may  be  intended  to  designate  not  only  an 
individual  phase  of  the  abstract  in  a  particular  relation,  with 
anaphora,  but  also  all  phases  and  relations  gathered  into  a  single 
concept — a  strictly  generic  sense.  The  sphere  of  Theocritean  poetry 
precludes  the  free  use  of  abstract  nouns  as  such,  and  simple 
abstracts  are  consequently  not  numerous.  A  tendency  to  personi- 
fication is  noted  in  a  number  of  instances  and  in  other  cases  there  is 
distinct  anaphora.  For  convenience  the  arrangement  of  examples  is 
alphabetical,  akyos  xx,  16  (anaphora) — e/)a>?  n,  63;  XI,  1,  80; 
xxiii,  9  ;  xxx,  9  ;  with  anaphora  in  n,  63  and  xi,  80.  Otherwise 
articular  only  with  attributives :  I,  93  ;  n,  69,  etc.  (refrain) ;  x,  57  ; 
XIV,  26  ;  xxiii,  43.    As  a  common  noun  e/>a>?  is  anarthrous  twelve 

times  in  Doric   idylls,  five  of  these  with   prepositions. fcdWos 

xxiii,  32  (with  attrib.).  In  n,  83,  /cdWos  is  concrete. — XaOos 
xxiii,  24  (anaphora) — neXwfia  xiv,  2  (anaphora) — poxOos  xxi, 
2  (concrete  in  xvi,  60) — irevia  xxi,  1,  16  (personification  in  both) 

1  The  relative  clauses  which  follow  the  last  two  nouns  are  causal,  and  in  112 
5a<rvK4picos  is  an  epithet. 

2Fritzsche  notes  correctly  :  "  in  coronis  vel  nectendis  vel  a  nobis  conspectis  (si 
quis  nectit  coronas  vel  si  nexas  cum  gaudio  contemplamur).,,  Objection  to  rots, 
-and  its  position  in  the  verse,  at  the  penthemimeral  caesura,  where  it  receives 
undue  emphasis  according  to  Hermann  (Opusc,  v,  89),  led  the  latter  to  emend 
to  iv  to?s  <rre(f)dvio  (cdd.  p.  D.,  tu  a-T€<pdpo})  and  so  Ameis  (p.  9).  But  Fritzsche 
shows  (ad  loc.  and  to  viii,  5)  that  the  verse  is  to  be  read  with  a  caesura  after 
€/j.Tras  and  after  arecp&vois.  On  the  other  hand  iv  rots  with  superlatives  seems 
to  be  decidedly  a  prose  use.     See  Krueger,  i,  49,  10,  6. 

3  §  461,  1,  2.  Cf.  Krueger,  I,  50,  3,  3  and  4  and  Hist.  Philol.  Studien,  n,  p. 
60,  and  see  Gildersleeve,  1.  c. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  53 

— ttoOos  xxx,  21  (semipersonification) — <£tXoT??<?  xn,  20  (with 
possessive).  It  is  anarthrous  as  abstract  xvi,  66  (epi°)  j  xviii, 
54. — (frpovrfc  xxi,  28  (personification  and  anaphora) — %a/w?  V,  37 
(generic-semipersonification) — XP^txa  XXI>  ^*>.  ^n  xv?  1^5  (cf. 
xviii,  4)  the  word  is  concrete.  Here  nfay  be  put  also  /ea>/xa>oYa, 
epigram  vm  (xvn),  1. 

8.  The  article  with  words  and  phrases  used  as  substantives.  The 
use  of  the  article  with  substantivized  words  and  phrases  was 
recognized  by  Apollonius  in  all  cases  save  apparently  with 
participles.1  The  use  is  so  familiar  that  it  requires  no  detailed 
discussion  here.  With  substantivized  words  and  phrases  the  article 
appears  in  all  its  functions,  particular  and  generic.  In  the  idylls 
of  Theocritus  the  particular  use  is  far  the  more  common  one.  In 
the  epic  idylls  cases  of  this  use  of  the  article  are  infrequent, 
especially  in  the  two  idylls  where  Homeric  lines  are  most  closely 
followed,  xxn  and  xxv. 

a.  With  adjectives.  Most  frequent  are  the  cases  where  the 
article  stands  with  substantivized  adjectives.2 

a.  Particular:  Masculine.  II,  112,  waTopyos.  in,  4,  rbv 
ivop^av ;  24,  6  Svo-aoos.  VII,  5,  ^aSiv  ra>v  iirdvcoOev  ;  96,  o  SetXo?; 
119,  o  Svo-nopos.3  xn,  23;  xiv,  29;  xv,  8,  12,  42,  53;  xx, 
18,  44;  xxin,  37;  xxix,  20.  Epigram,  vi  (xx).  2,  rbv 
Xeovrofjudxav,  rbv  o^v^eipa. 

Feminine.  I,  49,  rav  rpco^Lfiov  (sc.  crra^vXrjv).4,  II,  72,  138  ; 
V,  51,  100 ;  xv,  43,  145,  a  OrjXeia,  the  singer  present,    xviii,  4. 

Neuter.  (Neuters  used  adverbially  with  the  article  are  not 
included  here).  I,  20,  /cal  t&$  ftovtcoXacas  eirl  to  irXeov  i/ceo 
Moio-as.     Here  as  in  vm,  17,  rb  rrXeov  seems  to  be  "  the  prize."  5 

1  Cf.  introduction  and  below  under  "  participles  " . 

2  Cf .  Gildersleeve,  Syntax,  §  28  ff. 

3Ameis  cites  rbv  &lvov  from  this  passage  and  elsewhere  as  a  substantivized 
adjective.  Its  use  as  a  noun  had  become  so  fixed  that  it  was  no  longer  felt  as 
a  substantivized  adjective  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  here  used. 

4  It  is  unnecessary  to  take  the  article  here  as  Fritzsche  (ed.  1869)  took  it, 
"seine  Appetitstraube,  .  .  .  die  zum  Essen  bestimmte  Traube,"  comparing  t& 
didaKTpa,  vm,  86.     Tb.v  Tpd)£ifwi>  is  the  edible  fruit  on  the  vine  (1.  46). 

5  So  Fritzsche,  but  Cholmeley  insists  that  rb  ir\4ov  does  not  equal  d/cpo^  (Haupt, 
Opusc,  ii,  312),  but  expresses  simply  a  degree  definitely  higher  than  that  reached 


54  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

II,  36,  143. — in,  27,  to  76  fxav  reov  ahv  rervKraL.1  IV,  45  ;  V, 
71  ;  vin,  17  ;  xiv,  11  ;  xv,  78  ;  xvi,  42  ;  xvn,  118  ;  xx,  31, 
ra  S'  aarifcd  fi  ov/c  ifylXwo-ev — "  that  baggage  (Euneike)  with 
her  city  airs/7  with  contemptuous  reference  to  her  own  words 
(1.  4) ;  not  "  those  town  girls,"  as  Cholmeley  translates. — xxiv, 
72;  xxvi,  24;  xxix,  5;  xxx,  4. 

/3.  Generic :  Singular.  The  generic  singular  is  rare  and  outside 
of  neuter  forms  occurs  but  once  :  x,  17,  rov  akiTpov.  The  neuter 
is  found  in  three  places  :  xx,  19,  to  /cpijyvov,  equivalent  to  an 
abstract  noun  ;  xxix,  6,  to  8e  Xonrov,  "  all  the  rest."     Epigram, 

IV  (xn),  4,  to  tcaXov. Plural.    In  the  plural  again  most  of  the 

cases  are  neuter,  but  a  few  masculines  and  feminines  do  occur : 
XXI,  44.  Epigram,  VII  (xvi),  5. — I,  87,  t<z?  /za/eaSa?.2  The 
remaining  cases  are  all  neuters :  in,  31,  TaXaOea  "  the  truth." 
vi,  19 ;  vn,  127  ;  vin,  42 ;  xiii,  3 ;  xiv,  50 ;  xxvi,  32. 

b.  With  Participles.  It  has  been  said  (see  introduction)  that 
Apollonius  did  not  recognize  the  use  of  the  article  with  substan- 
tivized participles  except  in  the  case  of  a  few  stereotyped  forms. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  because  of  their  adjectival  character,  partici- 
ples are  treated  in  this  respect  exactly  as  adjectives  are  treated. 
Apollonius  himself  takes  up  cases  where  the  participle  is  used  as  an 

by  others,  just  as  vin,  17  is  according  to  him  "the  advantage,"  as  v,  71.  That 
there  are,  however,  cases  in  Theocritus  where  there  is  a  confusion  of  superlative 
and  comparative  is  shown  by  Legrand  (p.  311),  who  cites  our  passage.  See,  how- 
ever, also  Wilamowitz,  Textgeschichte,  p.  50,  note.  Taken  in  connection  with  the 
preceding,  the  meaning  is  clear:  "you  sang  rb.  Ad<pvi5os  <£\7ea  and  won  the 
prize  (t'fcco  aorist)  for  pastoral  minstrelsy" — with  a  possible  reference  to  the 
very  contest  mentioned,  line  24. 

1  Fritzsche  :  "ad  te  quod  attinet,  tu  quod  sentis  <t6  re6p^>  suave,  hilare, 
laetum  erit  <d5i>  t£tvktoll>."  Compare  schol.  cd.  /c,  "rb  <rbv  fiipos."  This  con- 
struction is  common  enough  (see  Fritzsche,  ad  loc. )  and  is  found  in  Pindar, 
Pyth.,  xi,  41  (cf.  Pyth.,  v,  72).  Meineke,  however,  followed  by  Hiller,  renders: 
"tua  tibi  voluptaseffectaest,"  connecting  rb  rebv  ctStf,  and  similarly  Ameis  (p.  11) 
and  Snow.  Cholmeley  objects  to  this  version  on  the  ground  that  rb  rebv  AM 
"  could  only  mean  'your  sweetness.'  "  But  Aristotle,  (BheL,  i,  1354,  b.  11)  fur- 
nishes an  exact  parallel  in  iirnxKoireip  rrj  Kpicrei  rb  Ulov  r}bi>  1)  \vir-qpbv. 

2 Like  £etvos,  /x-qKds,  "the  bleating  one,"  had  practically  become  a  noun.  In 
the  Thesauros  of  Stephanos  but  one  instance  is  cited  where  /^/cds  is  used  as  an 
adjective  of  something  besides  a  goat,  Soph.,  Frg.  Amphiar.  Nauck  Fr.  466, 
nr)K&8os  /3o6s. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  55 

adjective  in  the  first  attributive  position,1  and  with  '  6  Tvpavvo/cTovrjaas 
TifjLcLo-Oco '  he  illustrates  a  generic  use  of  the  article  which  he 
characterizes  as  TrpoXwTrTiK&Tepov.2, 

In  Theocritus  substantivized  participles  with  the  article  do  not 
occur  in  the  strictly  epic  idylls  and  they  were  probably  not  used 
by  Homer.  As  in  the  case  of  adjectives  the  generic  use  is  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  particular. 

a.  Particular.  Here  the  anaphoric  value  of  the  article  appears 
in  all  its  phases,  with  reference  to  definite  persons  or  things : 
XI,  19,  tov  fyiXeovra.  XIII,  68,  tcov  irapeovTwv.  This  is  the 
only  idyl  of  the  epic  group  that  shows  examples  of  this  type. 
Two  other  cases,  both  generic,  occur  in  the  same  poem.  (See  be- 
low.) xv,  47,  6  t€kq)v,3  54,  77.  xxin,  3,  62-63,  toI  tyXeovTes, 
6  fucrwv,  ol  /Mo-evvres.  xxix,  9,  18. — Here  belong  also  those  cases 
where  the  participle  with  the  article  is  used  in  apposition  with  a 
noun  or  pronoun.  So  with  nouns :  I,  63,  'AtSav  tov  eicXdOovTa, 
120, 121.  xni,  7  ;  xiv,  53.  Epigram,  iv  (xn),  1 ;  viii  (xvn),  1. 
— With  pronouns  :  xxviii,  8  \  xxix,  32.  Three  cases  may  also 
be  mentioned,  where  the  participle  with  the  article  precedes  a 
proper  name  :  ill,  32,  %a  irpav  iroioXoyevcra  TXapaifiark  ;  49,  6 
rbv  arpoTTOv  vttvov  lavcov  |  'Ev£i//lmW  ;  V,  4,  tov  fiev  tclv  avpcyya 
irpoav  K\e-\jravTa  KofjLaTav.  Of  these  the  first  and  the  last  have 
been  enumerated  above  among  proper  names  with  the  article,  but 
in  the  remaining  case,  the  position  of  'Ez^u/uW  at  the  head  of 
the  following  verse  indicates  that  the  participle  was  felt  as  an 
appositive. 

13.  Generic:  Singular,  viii,  17,  6  vi/cwv,  "the  winner,"  48. 
X,  53;  XI,  75,  tclv  irapeolaav  afxeXye.  tl  tov  <f>evyovTa  Sta/ceLS 
(proverbial).  XII,  13,  16  ;  XIV,  62,  tov  <f>tXeovTa,  tov  ov  fyikeovTa 
(=  tov  fJuaevvTa,  hence  ov.  Cf.  VI,  17).  xv,  25,  48,  126.  The 
only  generic  neuter  singulars  are:  xxin,  27,  to  fieWov,  and 
epigram  iv  (xn),  4,  to  Trpocrfj/cov. 

1  Syntax  I,  34,  p.  68,  Bekker. 
2Synt,  p.  27. 

AT€K&v  had  become  so  thoroughly  substantivized  as   to  be  construed  with  a 
dependent  genitive  ;  f.  L,  Eur.  Elec,  335;   Ion.,  308  ;  Ale,  167. 


56  The  Article  in  Theoci'itus. 

Plural,  x,  8,  tcov  aireovrayv ;  XII,  2,  oi  8e  7ro0evvT€<; ;  XIII,  66 
(epic);  xxiii,  24;  xxix,  30;  xxx,  15. — Actual  omissions  of 
this  article  with  substantivized  adjectives  and  participles  are  rare 
outside  of  the  epic  idylls.  In  the  Doric  idylls  we  may  note  :  in, 
47,  iirl  irXeov  .  .  .  XiWa?  ;  XV,  27,  e?  fjueaov,  both  phraseological ; 
xv,  142;  vi,  17;  vm,  QQ. 

c.  With  adverbs.  Three  cases  are  to  be  distinguished  here; 
first,  when  the  adverb  is  used  as  a  noun,  second,  when  it  is  used  as 
an  adjective,  third,  when  it  preserves  its  adverbial  character. 

a.  Used  as  nouns.  This  use  of  the  article  is  denied  to  Homer. 
Where  forms  of  the  article  stand  with  adverbs  they  are  explained 
as  demonstratives.1  Occurrences  of  this  use  in  Theocritus  are 
infrequent,  two  in  epic. — V,  28,  rbv  irXarlov ;  x,  3,  tw  Tfkarlov,  9, 
twv  eKToOev ;  xiii,  4,  to  S'  avptov;  XVI,  13,  rcov  vvv  (taken  by  Ameis, 
p.  6,  as  demonstrative,  in  the  Homeric  manner) ;  xxv,  216,  to 
fieo-nyv.      Epigr.  VII  (xvi),  4,  toiv  TrpoaOe. 

/3.  Used  as  attributive  adjectives,  with  nouns  expressed  or  under- 
stood, generally  in  the  first  attributive  position.  One  instance  of 
this  use  and  the  first  position  is  cited  from  Homer,  II.  xiv,  274. 
Two  cases  appear  in  epic  idylls  :  xxn,  38,  at  8  virevepOev 
|  XaXkai — where  the  article  may  be  considered  demonstrative,  and 
xxv,  236,  o  irplv  (sc.  oto-To?).  The  remaining  cases  are  I,  24 ; 
vn,  136  ;  xv,  141  ;  xxx,  21.  Epigram,  vi  (xx),  3.  Once  we 
find  the  adverb  with  the  article  following  the  noun,  like  the 
appositive  use  in  Homer,1  f.  i.  II.  ix,  559,  and  Od.  xxn,  220. 
The  case  in  Theocritus  is  vn,  5,  xa^v  ™v  eTrdvcodev. 

7.  Preserving  their  adverbial  character.2  This  use  is  frequent 
enough  in  Homer,  and  with  adverbial  accusatives  of  adjectives  is 
found  in  Pindar.3  The  article  is  not  restricted  to  local  and 
temporal  adverbs,  but  these  categories  cover  most  cases.  In 
Theocritus  the  construction  is  frequent  in  Doric  idylls,  and  three 
cases  occur  in  epic.     Temporal  adverbs  or  neuter  adjectives  are 


1  Foersteinann,  p.  19. 

2Krueger,  1,  50,  5,  10  and  13.     11,  50,  5,  10  and  11.     Kuehner,  §  461,  6. 

3  Stein,  p.  40. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  57 

the  most  common.  I,  41,  kclijlvovtl  to  tcaprepov.  Ill,  3,  TiTvp1 
i/julv  to  kclXov  7re(f)i\r)fjL€ve.1  ill,  18,  to  kclXov  7ro0op(baa.  Other 
cases  are  the  following  :  Temporal:  I,  15  ;  II,  144 ;  IV,  3  ;  V,  13, 
113,  126;  x,  2,  29,  48;  xv,  15;  xvn,  75;  xx,  21;  xxn,  4; 
xxv,  240;  xxiii,  40. — Adverbs  of  manner :  in,  18;  vii,  59, 
98 ;  xv,  58. — Omission  of  the  article  may  be  noted  in  I,  34, 
kclXov,  VII,  21,  fieo-afjLeptov  ;2  VIII,  16,  iroOeairepa. 

d.  With  prepositional  jihrases.  Masculine  and  feminine  forms 
to  designate  persons  do  not  occur  in  Theocritus,  a.  The  purely 
substantive  use  of  prepositional  phrases  occurs  only  in  the  neuter 
in  four  instances :  x,  14,  to,  irpo  Ovpav.  xxvin,  25,  to,  Trap  <f>CX(p. 
XXII,  (epic)  22,  tcl  777909  ttXoov,  61,  to,  t  ef  ifiev  (sc.  gevca). — /3. 
The  appositive  use  of  articular  prepositional  phrases,  found  also  in 
Homer,  occurs  in  Theocritus  as  follows  :  I,  1,  a  7rn-t>?  .  .  .  ttjvcl  a 
ttotI  tclIs  irayaicri,  65,  ®vpcri<?  08'  a>f  Atri>a?  ;  V,  52,  65  ;  VII,  40, 
151  ;  xi,  7 ;  xxvi,  4  (epic).  Epigram,  vi  (xx),  4. — y.  Most 
common  are  the  cases  where  a  prepositional  phrase  stands  in  the 
first  attributive  position  :  I,  30,  a  8e  /car'  clvtov  .  .  .  e\tf,  72  ;  II, 
33  ;  v,  47,  49',  57  ;  vi,  18  ;  vn,  7,  130,  138  ;  xxv,  180  (epic) ; 
xxvin,  17  ;  xxx,  27. 

e.  With  the  infinitive.  We  would  naturally  expect  but  little 
use  of  the  articular  infinitive  in  Theocritus.  Doubt  has  been  cast 
on  each  of  the  three  cases  that  are  cited  (from  Doric  idylls).  In 
IX,  13,  tw  Se  Oepeos  <j>pvyovTO<;  i<yay  too-gov  fxeXehalvct)  |  oaaov  ipebv 
to  TrcLTpos  fivdcov  Kol  /jLdTpo?  ciKovav,  various  changes  are  made.3 — 
No  certain  parallel  has  yet  been  cited  for  such  a  use  of  the  infinitive 
for  a  concrete  noun  as  is  found  in  x,  53,  ov  /xeXeSaivei  tov  to 
irielv  iyxevvTa.     Here,  as  in  the  passage  cited  as  parallel  from 

.  l  T6  ko\6v  troubled  the  scholiast  who  explains  :  tfyovv  81a  to  kcLWos  4/xol  ire<f>i\. 
•  7}  olptI  tov  xaXws  .  fj  5ia  t6  koXov  .  .  .  J)  to  KaXbv  olvtI  tov  \tav.  Editors  ( Cholme- 
ley  ad  loc.,  Fritzsche  to  1,  41)  cite  as  parallels  to  this  use  of  the  article  with  neuter 
adjectives  for  adverbs  of  quality,  Lucian,  Amor.  26,  voucivdois  t6  ko\ov  avdovaiv 
(cf.  ib.  3),  Herondas,  1,  54,  Anthol.  Pal.,  vn,  219,  Callim.,  Ep.  52,  and  others 
(see  Legrand,  p.  308),  which  show  that  the  construction  is  late.  As  in  the  case 
of  other  adverbs,  the  article  lends  definiteness.  Cf.  1,  34,  where  the  article  is 
omitted. 

2  Now  probably  correctly  read  r6  fxea.  by  Wilamowitz  for  tv  /j.e<r. 

3  See  Fritzsche' s  critical  note. 


58  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

Anthol.  Pal.  xii,  34,  4  :  el?  efyepev  to  <j>ayelv,  eh  Se  irielv  eSiBov, 
changes  have  also  been  made  to  avoid  the  article,  tho  most  editors 
keep  the  reading  given.  The  verbs  used  here,  belonging  as  they 
do  to  ;the  sphere  of  vulgar  language  would  be  especially  prone  to 
such  an  extension  of  the  articular  infinitive.1  In  xi,  60,  vvv  av  to 
ya  velv  /jbepLadev/jLcu,  editors  generally  write  avTo  ya,  clvtoOl  or 
similar  forms. 

9.  The  article  with  appositive  nouns,  a.  When  a  noun  is  used 
in  apposition  with  another  noun,  it  takes  the  article  if  it  does  not 
simply  express  an  attribute  or  predicate,  but  adds  a  definite  and 
distinguishing  characteristic.  The  article  then  has  anaphoric 
value.  Apollonius2  lays  it  down  as  a  law,  that  an  appositive 
added  to  a  proper  noun  always  takes  the  article :  tol  Be  eirideTiKa 
eirdv  o-vvTaacrnTat  KVpiois  ovofiaai,  ttclvtws  o~vv  apOpois  \eyeTai, 
el  fjLrj  tcl  inrap/CTLfcd  t&v  pn/JLctTcov  eirKpepotTo.  This  is  too  general 
a  statement,  since  numerous  cases  arise  where  the  appositive  stands 
without  the  article.3  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  rule  stated  at  the 
beginning  of  this  paragraph  applies  also  in  the  case  of  proper 
names  followed  by  an  appositive,  for  if  the  appositive  simply  adds 
an  attribute  which  does  not  distinguish  the  individual  the  article 
is  unnecessary.4  For  Theocritus  we  may  cite  in,  31,  a  Tpaioo  .  .  . 
fcocr/av6/JLavTL<;  (?).  VII,  3  f.  teal  <£>pao-i8afJL0$  |  /c'  'AvTiyevvs  Svo 
TeKva  Avfcvpeos.  vili,  93 ;  XIV,  24 ;  XXVIII,  6  ;  XXIX,  38. 
Epigr.,  vn,  2,  and  others,  besides  many  in  epic  idylls.  Only 
two  cases  are  cited  below  from  an  epic  idyl  where  the  appositive 
has  the  article,  xiii,  5,  and  19,  of  which  the  former  is  not  in  the 
epyllion  proper.  For  cases  where  the  proper  name  also  has  the 
article,  see  above  under  proper  names. 

a.  The  appositive  may  precede,  and  then  it  has  the  greater 
emphasis  :  I,  113,  tov  /3ovto,v  vi/cco  Ad<f>viv.  ill,  43  ;  IV,  33  ;  V, 
80;  xiii,  19;  xiv,  1,  12;  xv,  11,  18,  22,  110,  120;  xix,  1. 
Epigram,  vm  (xvn),  1  ;  ix  (xxi),  1. 

*&.  A.  J.  P.,  in,  195. 

2  Syntax,  32,  p.  65.  11,  Bekker. 

3  See  Kuehner,  §  462  A.  Amn.  1. 

4Cf.  Fuller,  p.  66 f.  for  examples  from  Aristophanes. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  59 

p.  The  appositive  may  follow,  and  then  the  greater  emphasis  is 
upon  the  noun  which  it  modifies:  n,  146,  tfrtXto-ras  .  .  .  Ta?  afias 
avXwrptSos.  ill,  4,  26  ;  IV,  21,  rol  tw  Aa/JtTrptdSa  rot  BafioTcu ;  "the 
people  (descendants)  of  Lampriades,  the  demesmen"  (cf.  iv,  33; 
xm,5).  v,10,15,  64  ;  vi,44  ;  vn,73  j  viii,34  ;  xiii,5  J  xiv,13,24  ; 
XV,  138,  139  ;  XXI,  9  ff.  rd  ratv  yetpotv  aOXruxaTa,  rol  KaXa6t(Ticot, 
|  toI  tcaXa/jtot,  rdyKtcrrpa,  rd  (frvfctdevra  SeXwra  |  (op  fiat  KvpToC  re 
/cat  i/c  o-'Xpivwv  XaBvptvOot  |  fxrjptvOot  /coma  re  yepcov  t  eir 
ipeia/jLCMrt  \e/x/3o?).  Here  rol  icakaOCa-Koi,  etc.,  are  in  epexegetic 
apposition  with  rd  d6\rj/jLara.  The  omission  of  the  article  with 
the  other  nouns  in  the  series  is  noteworthy.  At  first  the  article 
retards  the  description.  Each  group  of  implements  is  a  picture 
by  itself:  "  the  baskets,  the  rods,  etc.,"  of  their  trade,  and  then  in 
a  rapid  sweep  are  added,  in  a  confused  heap,  "  lines,  wells,  traps, 
cords,  an  oar  and  an  old  boat  on  stays." — xxiii,  21.  Epigram, 
IV  (xn),  1 ;  vi  (xx),  2.  Omissions  of  the  article  with  nouns 
in  apposition  with  common  nouns  also  occur.  So  n,  121;  VII, 
11  ;  xv,  97,  etc.,  but  mostly  in  epic  idylls. 

b.  A  common  type  of  apposition  is  that  where  a  noun 
stands  in  apposition  with  a  personal  pronoun  expressed  or 
understood.  A  noun  or  substantivized  word  standing  in  this 
relation  generally  takes  the  article,  because  the  reference  is 
necessarily  definite  in  most  cases.  The  appositive  may  precede 
or  follow  the  pronoun  to  which  it  belongs :  I,  116,  6  fiov/c6\o$ 
.  .  .  iycD  Adfois.  II,  72,  iya)  ...  a  peyaXoiTOSj  138  ;  III,  19, 
irpoGTTTV^ai  fxe  top  aliroXov  )x  v,  90 ;  XI,  39 ;  XII,  23 ;  XIV, 
56.  XVIII,  22,  a/i/xe?  8'  at  irdaai  o-vvofAdXuces.  Here  at  irdaai 
is  generally  taken  with  avvo/jidXiKes  as  predicate  to  d/jL/ues. 
It   seems  better,  however,  to    take  at   irdarat   alone,  in    apposi- 

1  Fritzsche  expands  on  the  article  here  saying  :  ' '  hunc  qualem  coram  vides 
caprarium,  h.  e.,  qualis  esse  caprarius  verus  debet,  hominem  haud  contemnen- 
dum.  Aliquoties  Theocritus  quum  quis  de  se  ipso  atque  officio  suo  et  vitae 
genere  praedicat,  ita  ponit  articulum,  ut  aut  cum  conscientia  quadam  dignitatis 
suae  ea  persona,  quae  verba  facit,  loqui  videatur,  aut,  id  quod  redit  eodem, 
officium  eius  notum  significetur. "  He  compares  v,  88,  90;  xiv,  56.  It  cannot 
however  be  maintained  that  in  all  these  cases  there  is  dvacpopa  /far'  k^oxhv — for 
that  is  what  Fritzsche' s  note  seems  to  say  for  this  instance. 


60  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

tion  with  amies. — xx,  18;  xxm,  37;  xxvm,  8;  xxix,  32. 
Epigram,  iv  (xn),  2.  With  pronouns  implied  or  understood  we 
find  an  articular  appositive  in  in,  24,  and  xiv,  29.  Here  belong 
those  cases  where  the  noun  with  the  article,  in  the  nominative 
case,  stands  in  apposition  with  an  expressed  or  unexpressed  voca- 
tive.1 This  use,  found  also  in  Homer,  is  more  common  in  the 
plural,  where  distinct  forms  for  the  vocative  are  wanting,  but  the 
singular  of  common  as  well  as  proper  nouns  is  similarly  found  ; 
so,  Arist.  Birds,  665,  rj  Upo/cvrj  \  eicfiaive ;  cf.  ib.,  1628;  Plut., 
1100  ;  Lucian  Deor.  Dial.,  20,  crv  Be  irpocnQi  ty  KOnva.  Following 
examples  of  plurals  are  found  in  Theocritus:2  I,  151,  at  Be 
Xfaaipat,  |  ov  fir}  o-KipTvarelre ;  V,  100,  108  (?),  110;  Vili,  67  ; 
xxin,  62,  63. — In  the  singular  are  found  the  folloAving,  all 
names  of  animals  :  IV,  45,  gitO'  6  Keirapyos  (or  Xeirap^os),  46, 
a  Kvfiaida  (v.  1.  v  K.) ;  with  obros,  v,  102,  147.  In  I,  151,  the 
name  of  an  animal  is  thus  used  without  the  article. 

10.  The  article  with  the  predicate.  The  fact  that  the  predicate 
usually  adds  something  previously  not  known  of  the  subject, 
and  is  indefinite  in  the  sense  that  it  designates  the  class  to  which 
the  subject  belongs,  causes  the  predicate  in  most  cases  to  stand 
without  the  article.  But  when  the  predicate  is  to  be  regarded  as 
known  and  definite,  it  takes  the  article  in  the  same  way  as  other 
nouns,  and  subject  and  predicate  are  equivalent.  If  the  subject 
itself  is  anarthrous  the  predicate  cannot  take  the  article,  unless  the 
nature  of  the  subject  is  such  as  to  make  it  definite  without  the 
article,  or  the  predicate  is  a  word  which  requires  the  article  to 
complete  its  meaning.3  Cases  are  rare  in  Theocritus  where  an 
actual  predicate  has  the  article.  Id.  in,  13,  aide  yevoifiav  |  a 
fio/jL/Sevcra,  fieXto-cra.  Editors  usually  call  the  article  deictic, 
explaining  that  the  speaker  points  to  a  bee  that  happens  to  be 
flying  about.  Theocritus  shows  a  fondness  for  the  generic  article, 
and  since  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  to  indicate  emphatic 

1  See  Gildersleeve,  Syntax,  §  13  ;  Krueger,  i,  45,  2,  6  ;  n,  50,  7,  4. 

2  Cf.  Ameis,  p.  17. 

8 See  especially  J.  Dornseiffen.  o.  c,  and  A.  Proksch,  o.  c,  who  eliminated 
many  cases  of  articular  nouns  falsely  understood  as  predicates.  This  special  work 
has  however  yielded  little  that  is  not  in  the  grammars. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  61 

deixis,  it  seems  better  to  call  the  article  here  generic. — xxi,  14, 
outo?  toIs  aXievaiv  6  7r<z?  Tropos,  ovtos  6  ttXovtos.  The  article  has 
possessive  value.  (Outo?  by  attraction  for  Tavra,  referring  to  the 
list  of  implements  described  in  the  preceding  lines). — xxi,  36, 
aW*  ovos  ev  pd/j,va>  to  re  \vyyiov  ev  irpvTaveiw  :  u  he  is  (like)  an 
ass  in  the  bramble,  and  the  (proverbial)  light  in  the  Prytaneum." 
Ameis,  (p.  4),  reading  to  Be  (mss.  ;  to  re  is  Kaupt's  correction), 
takes  the  article  as  substantive  subject  with  \vyyiov  predicate. 
(Cf.  Hermann,  Opusc.  v,  112). 

In  other  cases  that  have  been  cited  as  instances  of  articular 
predicates,  the  articular  noun  is  to  be  taken  as  subject  (so  where 
one  member  of  a  sentence  is  an  interrogative  pronoun,  f.  i.  xiv, 
2,  tl  Be  tol  to  fjbeXrjfia).  This  is  true  of  XXI,  33,  otrro?  apLCTTOS 
oveipo/cpLTas,  6  SiSda/caXos  io-Tt  7ra/o'  a>  vovs,  which  Ameis,  (p.  19), 
renders  :  "  cui  mens  est  pro  suo  magistro."  'O  faMcr/cako?  etc., 
logically  answers  the  question  ti?  6  StSda/caXos  with  the  predicate 
i/oO?. — In  x,  29,  t&  irpaTa  has  been  taken  adverbially  (see  above) 
while  at  iracraL  in  xvin,  22,  has  been  construed  as  in  apposition 
with  the  subject  a/x^e?  (see  above  under  9  b). 

Somewhat  different  are  the  cases  where  an  articular  noun  stands 
as  indirect  predicate  after  verbs  of  making,  calling,  and  similar 
verbs.  So,  f.  i.,  viii,  17,  tl  Be  to  irXeov  e^el  6  vlk<ov.  Here  ti 
ifkeov  would  simply  mean  "what  more"  while  rC  to  irXeov  is 
"  what  is  the  prize  the  victor  will  get."  Compare  viii,  86  and 
in,  7. 

11.  The  article  with  nouns  accompanied  by  attributive  adjectives. 
When  the  article  is  used  with  a  noun  accompanied  by  an  attribu- 
tive adjective,  the  adjective  may  occupy  one  of  three  positions. 
These  positions  are  regularly  designated  as  the  first,  second  and 
third  attributive  position  respectively,  as  the  adjective  stands 
between  the  article  and  the  noun,  or  follows  the  articular  noun 
with  an  article  of  its  own,  or  with  its  own  article  follows  the 
anarthrous  noun.1  Of  these  positions  the  first  is  logically  the 
simplest,  and  is  therefore  designated  by  Aristotle  (Rhet.  1407, 
b.  37)  as  the  position  which  contributes  to  o-vvTOfjuia  in  composi- 

1  See  Milden,  "  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek,"  introd. 


62  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

tion.  In  the  second  position  each  article  has  its  own  value.1 
Aristotle  mentions  this  position  (1.  c.  line  36)  as  one  of  the 
elements  that  contribute  to  oy/cos  in  composition,  and  it  has  been 
called  the  "oratorical"  position.  In  the  third  position  the  noun 
is  stated  simply,  without  being  indicated  as  definite  or  known, 
and  the  adjective  with  its  article  is  added  much  like  an  after- 
thought to  explain  the  noun.  Aristotle  does  not  directly  mention 
this  position.  Professor  Gildersleeve  has  called  it  the  position 
that  "  is,  or  affects  to  be,  easy  "  and  "  familiar/' 2  and  has  pointed 
out  that  its  interpretation  depends  upon  the  grammatical  stage  of 
the  language.  "  When  the  article  is  still  largely  implicit,  when 
vuh  is  6  vlos  then  uto?  6  e/^o?  =  6  wo?  o  eyuo?.  When  it  is  explicit, 
then  vlos  6  e/io?  has  a  decidedly  naive  effect,  the  afterthought 
o  ifjuk  is  a  grata  neglegentia,  a  slipshoddiness  of  the  Greeks." 
Since  poetry  can  omit  the  article,  can  resort  to  the  implicit  arti- 
cle, the  third  position  may  be  used  as  a  poetical  equivalent  for  the 
second  position.  This  is  especially  the  case  where  the  noun  has 
more  than  one  attributive,  as,  f.  i.,  it/,  xvi,  44,  I,  126. 

Of  the  three  positions,  the  first  is  far  the  most  common  in 
Theocritus,  while  the  second  is  the  least  common,  and  the  third  is 
only  about  one  fourth  as  common  as  the  first  position.  Where 
the  adjective  is  a  possessive,  the  first  position  is  regular  in 
Theocritus,  only  one  instance  of  each  of  the  other  positions  being 
found. 

a.  First  attributive  position :  I,  3,  7,  13,  20,  61,  133,  146 ; 
ii,  12,  94,  102,  115,  118,  126,  156;  m,  5,  46,  49,  13  (parti- 
ciple); iv,  19,  40,  59;  v,  17,  24,  87,  101,  112;  VI,  11,  16 
(twice),  36  ;  vn,  10,  39,  65,  87,  118,  121,  123,  132,  152  ;  vm, 
47,  49,  56,  62,  86  ;  x,  20,  24,  28,  41  ;  XI,  6,  8,  35,  39,  43,  47, 
53;  xn,  20,  28,  35;  xm,  5,  7,  11,  16,  19  ;  xiv,  8,  12,  26  ; 
xv,  4,  33,  34,  51,  58,  81,  86,  110,  128;  xvi  (epic),  22;  xvn 
(epic),  26;  xvm,  5,  19,  28,  31;  xx,  5,  33;  xxi,  10,  14,  19, 
26,  55,  QQ,  67;    xxn  (epic),  34,   140,  189;    xxm,  51;    xxiv 

1  Apollonius  Synt.,   I,    40,   p.    80,   12,    Bekker,    twp    56o   dpdpuv   56o  ava<popas 
8ia<popovs  SrfkotivTuv. 
2 See  his  Justin  Martyr  A.;  6,  7  ;  A.  J.  P.,  vi,  262,  xvn,  518. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  63 

(epic),  61  (aWos),  63  ;  XXVI  (epic),  1,  24  (aWo?)  ;  xxvii,  1  ; 
xxvm,  23  j  xxix,  16,  37  ;  xxx,  25.  Epigram,  I,  1,  3.  For 
adverbs  and  prepositional  phrases  used  attributively  in  this  position 
see  above  under  8  c  and  d. 

b.  Second  attributive  position.  No  examples  of  this  position  are 
found  in  epic  idylls  save  xiii,  6,  and  this  does  not  stand  in  the 
epyllion  proper.  Following  examples  occur:  iv,  20;  v,  99,  108  ; 
vn,  98  ;  viii,  27  ;  xiii,  6  ;  xv,  127.  Epigram,  I,  1.  Here  may 
be  mentioned  also  v,  11,  to  Kpo/cv\o<;  /jlol  eBw/ce,  to  ttouciXov, 
answering  the  question  to  irolov  .  .  .  voucos.  The  adjective  takes 
this  position  in  three  cases  where  the  noun  is  accompanied  by  a 
demonstrative:  I,  23;  v,  147.  Epigram,  in  (x),  2.  Similarly 
once  with  <zuto'?,  v,  14.  Four  instances  where  a  prepositional 
phrase  stands  in  this  position  have  been  cited  above,  under  8  d  yS.1 

c.  Third  attributive  position.  The  addition  to  proper  names  of 
an  adjective  in  this  position  has  already  been  discussed  (see  6  a 
end).  Outside  the  sphere  of  proper  names  the  following  cases 
have  been  noted  :  I,  124  ;  in,  37  ;  v,  36  ;  viii,  74,  \6yov  .  .  . 
top  irucpop  (vv.  11.);  X,  18  ;  XI,  46,  afiireXo^  a  yXv/cv/capiros  ;2 
xxi,  8  ;  xxni,  32;  xxv  (epic)  27  ;  xxix,  19  ;  and  with  a  pre- 
ceding demonstrative,  II,  30.3 

d.  When  the  articular  noun  is  accompanied  by  two  or  more 
attributive  modifiers,  Attic  prose  usage  permits  a  choice  of  positions 
within  certain  limitations.4  Stated  generally,  the  rule  is,  that, 
when  two  attributives  without  a  conjunction  are  joined  to  a  noun 
by  means  of  the  article,  usually  either  both  stand  between  the 
article  and  noun,  or  one  (or  even  both)  follows  the  noun  with  the 
article  repeated.  According  to  Krueger,  when  both  attributives 
are  adjectives,  they  are  usually  both  inserted  in  the  first  position 

1  For  cases  where  one  of  two  adjective  attributives  takes  this  position  see  below 
under  d. 

2  In  this  description  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Cyclops,  the  omission  of  the 
article  with  the  other  nouns  is  noteworthy.  The  Cyclops  emphasizes  what  is  good 
to  eat  and  drink,  the  product  of  the  vine  (cf.  Legrand,  307,  364).  Note  that  in 
English  also  the  vine  par  excellence  is  the  grape). 

3  For  participles,  adverbs  and  prepositional  phrases  in  this  position  see  above 
under  8,  and  for  cases  where  the  noun  has  more  than  one  attributive  see  below. 

4  Krueger,  i,  50,  9  ff .     Kuehner,  §  464,  7. 


64  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

only  when  one  adjective  forms  a  single  concept  with  the  noun,  and 
the  other  adjective  modifies  the  complex.  In  Homer !  the  com- 
bination of  two  attributives  with  an  articular  noun  is  rare,  and  in 
most  cases  both  attributives  stand  between  the  article  and  the  noun. 
This  is  also  the  most  common  position  in  Theocritus.  With  two 
adjectives  we  find  the  following  cases  :  n,  3,  tov  ipov  <  fiapvv 
evvray*  <f>i\ov  .  .  .  avSpa ;  x,  57  ;  XV,  138.  Where  one  modifier 
is  an  adjective,  the  other  a  genitive  or  some  other  modifier,  the 
inside  position  for  both  attributives  is  found  :  I,  92,  tov  clvtco  .  .  . 
TTiKpov  epcora;  vii,  80,  136,  138;  xvi,  90  (epic);  xviii,  6.  In 
one  case  two  adjectives  joined  by  ical  take  this  position  :  xxx,  1 , 
teal  tco  ^aXeiro)  /calvo/jiopco  rtwSe  vo<rr)\xaTOS.  In  V,  84,  a  predicate 
adjective  is  inserted  by  hyperbaton  :  irXav  hvo  ra<z  Xoittcls  BiSvfJia- 
to'/co?  al<ya<;  afxeXyco  (cf.  Ameis,  p.  15). 

In  one  instance  two  attributive  adjectives,  each  with  an  article, 
precede  the  noun :  VI,  22,  tov  ifibv  tov  eva  yXv/cvv.  Compare 
Thuc,  8,  23,  4,  raZ?  yu,e#'  eavTod  vavcrl  teal  Tah  Tpurl  tclIs  Xtat? 
iraperrXei,  and  other  examples  cited  by  Kuehner,  §  464,  7,  c.  (cf. 
Ameis,  p.  21). — In  xin,  5,  oo/JLcjiLTpvcDvos  6  %a\«;eo*;a/?Sio?  wd?,  o? 
tov  Xlv  vTrefjLeive, — o  %a\/e.     vl<h  is  in  apposition  with  the  elliptical 

(dflfaTpVCDVOS. 

In  a  few  cases  one  attributive  precedes  with  the  article,  while 
the  other  follows  with  the  article  repeated:  I,  141,  tov  MotVat? 
(f)iXov  avBpa,  tov  ov  Nv/jlcJxilo-iv  a7re^^.  II,  70,  a  ©et^a/Jt'Sa 
Opaaaa  Tpo(j>6<;  a  iLoucaplTis  |  ayxfflvpos  vaiovcra;2  VII,  39;  XIII, 
7.  In  in,  45,  an  adjective  and  a  genitive  follow  in  the  third 
attributive  position.  Twice  we  find  positions  not  sanctioned  by 
prose  usage:    I,   126,  alirv    re    aa/xa  \  ttjvo  Avicaovihao,  to  koX 


1  Krueger,  n,  50,  9  and  Anm. 

2  Qpq.<rcra  because  of  its  position  can  hardly  be  a  proper  name  as  some  editors  take 
it.  Fritzsche's  argument  for  /xcucapTris  as  a  proper  name,  on  the  ground  that  the 
girl  here  speaking  would  scarcely  call  "  na/capiTis"  an  old  woman  who  had 
brought  all  her  woe  upon  her,  cannot  be  taken  seriously.  MaKaplrrjs,  fern. 
naicapiTis  seems  to  have  been  commonly  used  of  the  dead  with  about  as  much 
sincerity  as  "derseelige"  in  modern  German.  lias  yhp  X^yei  tis  l6  paKaplrifjs 
orx«"cu'  (Stobaeus  Flor.  121,  18,  cf.  Hiller  ad  loc).  Compare  Herondas,  vi,  55, 
Ku\cu0ts  i}  p,aKap?Tis. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  65 

ticucdpeao-Lv  ayrjTov,  and  xvi,  (epic)  44,  Seivos  aot8o\  6  K^to?,  where 
the  omission  of  the  article  before  the  nouns  is  poetical.  The 
article  is  unrepeated  with  a  genitive,  following  an  articular  noun 
with  an  adjective  in  the  first  attributive  position,  in  XV,  51,  and  so 
frequently  where  the  genitive  is  a  personal  pronoun. 

12.  Predicative  position.1  An  adjective  modifier  either  preced- 
ing or  following  a  noun  and  its  article  is  said  to  stand  in  the 
predicative  position.  The  relation  of  the  adjective  to  the  nouu  is 
then  that  of  predicate  to  subject,  with  a  form  of  the  participle 
understood.  A  noun  thus  attended  by  a  predicative  adjective  is 
not  distinguished  from  other  individuals  of  its  class,  but  its 
present  attribute  is  contrasted  with  other  attributes  of  itself.  In 
translation  the  article  is  often  omitted.2 

Simple  cases  of  this  construction  with  nouns  in  the  nominative 
case  are  the  following :  IV,  5,  Avto?  .  .  .  a<t>avTO<;  6  /3ov/c6\os 
a)%ero.  xi,  67,  a  fjudrvp  a&i/cel  /ne  fiova,  cf.  xxi,  1. — XV,  53  ;  XX, 
24  ;  xxiii,  24  ;  xxv,  236  (epic).  Cases  where  there  is  an  ellipsis 
of  the  verb  eVrt  need  not  be  cited.  Such  ellipses  are  very  common 
in  Theocritus,  especially  in  idylls  vni  and  xv. 

The  most  common  type  of  the  predicative  modifier  in  Theocritus 
is  that  of  oblique  predication  in  the  accusative  case,  with  verbs  of 
calling,  making,  and  a  few  others.  Of  the  adverbial  dative  and 
prepositional  types  discussed  by  Milden  (o.  c.)  no  examples  occur 
in  Theocritus.  Of  the  accusative  type  following  instances  have 
been  noted  :  iv,  13,  top  BovkoXov  &>?  koucov  eitpov ;  VI,  7  ;  x,  2  ; 
xix,  8  ;  xxi,  23,  47  ;  xxix,  18.  (In  xxvn,  37,  ra  8e  irwea 
KaXa  vo/jLevco,  kclKcl  is  used  adverbially  with  the  verb).  Add  to 
these  three  instances  of  oblique  predication  in  the  accusative  with 
parts  of  the  body  :  XX,  8,  fxaXafcov  to  yevecov  e%ei? ;  XXIX,  33  ; 
xxx,  28.  All  of  the  cases  so  far  cited  are  easily  explained  in 
conformity  with  Attic  usage.  The  four  cases  remaining  have 
caused  commentators  no  little  trouble. — I,  95,  rjvOe  ye  fiav  dSela 
koX  a  Ku7rpi?  yeXdoco-a.  Here  as  in  the  other  three  cases  presently 
to  be  cited,  Legrand,  (p.  309),  believes  that  we  must  admit  faulty 


aSee  Milden,  "  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 
2  See  Gildersleeve  to  Justin  Martyr  A.,  17,  11. 


66  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

construction,  that  in  every  case  the  adjective  ought  to  stand  between 
the  article  and  noun.  None  of  the  passages,  however,  save  iv,  49, 
need  cause  any  real  difficulty.  In  the  passage  just  cited,  dSela 
belongs  to  the  predicate,  with  the  participle  yeXdoiaa.  Cholmeley 
correctly  compares  Pind.  Pyth.  viu,  12  (10),  Tpa^ela  Svcrfxevecov 
.  .  .  viravTid^aLG-a  /cpdrei.  In  Theocritus  we  find  the  same 
construction  in  V,  90,  6  YLparihas  tov  iroL/xeva  Xeto?  vjravrcov  | 
eK^iaCveL,  for  which  Ameis,  (p.  41),  also  believed  that  a  transposi- 
tion of  the  article  must  be  assumed.  The  construction  does  not 
differ  from  XX,  24,  ical  Xevicdv  to  fxercoTrov  en  oc^pvai  Xd/jare 
fjueXatvat^.1 — In  I,  109,  a>/?ato?  x&Scovls  iirel  /cal  paXa  vofievei,  we 
have  to  do  simply  with  an  ellipsis  of  eari  and  aypalos  is  predicate 
to  o"A&wm. — In  XXIX,  33,  aviKa  tclv  yevvv  avhpe'i'av  6^779,  we 
have  a  construction  familiar  enough  with  parts  of  the  body,  and 
this,  together  with  two  other  examples  of  the  same  kind,  has 
already  been  cited  under  "  oblique  predication." — There  remains 
only  IV,  49,  eX6>  r)v  fioi  poi/cov  to  Xay(o/36Xov  •  (tl  for  to  Hermann, 
Wilamowitz,  to  codd.,  tv  P.).  The  scholiast  vet.,  noting  the 
position  of  poL/cov,  explains  fancifully :  pd/38ov  ovaav  opOrjv 
€7r€v%6Tai  yeveadai  tcajXTrvX^v,  cva  fir)  ey/cvov  ovorav  /3Xdyjrrj  tt)v 
ftovv.  The  parallels  cited  by  Fritzsche  and  others  for  this  position 
of  poiKov  are  accusatives  and  datives  of  the  type  discussed  by 
Milden,  and  do  not  explain  this  passage.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
prepositional  type  cited  from  Lucian  by  Cholmeley,  while  the 
latter's  suggestion  fPot/eoV,  "my  staff  Crookie,"  is  unsupported. 
To  take  poiKov  as  the  direct  predicate  of  to  XaycofioXov  does  not 
suit,  since  a  XaywftoXov  is  naturally  poacov  (cf.  vn,  18,  where  a 
XaycoftoXov  is  called  a  poiica  Kopvva).  Unless  we  admit  hyperba- 
ton  of  the  adjective  attribute,  tl  for  to  seems  the  only  present 
solution  of  the  passage. 

Of  other  cases  of  the  predicative  position  where  Ameis,  (p.  41), 
sees  difficulty,  xx,  24  and  xxi,  23,  have  been  disposed  of  above. 
Two  others  remain  to  be  mentioned  :  xv,  145,  to  XP^H10, 
aocj)(OT€pov,    where    evTi    is    to    be    supplied,    and    xxvn,    58, 

^n  the  whole  passage  see  Seymour,  Proc.  Am.  Phil.  Ass'n,  July,  1882,  p.  xli, 
' '  On  the  Smile  of  Aphrodite." 


The  Article  in   Theocritus.  67 

Ta/jLTre^ovov  iroincras  i/juov  pd/cos,  for  which  see  below  under 
"  article  with  possessives." 

Among  participial  modifiers  no  examples  of  the  type  discussed 
by  Milden  occur  in  our  poet. 

13.  The  use  of  the  article  in  genitive  combinations.  In  the  case 
of  nouns  accompanied  by  dependent  genitives,  two  kinds  of  rela- 
tions are  distinguishable,  an  attributive  relation  and  a  partitive 
relation.1 

a.  Attributive  position.  A  simple  attributive  genitive  depend- 
ing upon  an  articular  governing  noun  is  generally  treated  as  an 
attributive  adjective  and  stands  in  an  attributive  position.  The 
genitive  usually  has, an  article  of  its  own,  except  when  it  is  a 
proper  noun.2  In  Theocritus  there  are  few  instances  of  such  posi- 
tions outside  of  proper  nouns. 

In  three  cases  an  anarthrous  genitive  of  a  common  noun  stands 
in  the  first  attributive  position  :  xv,  107,  wvOpdyrrwv  &)?  fivdos 
(most  edd.  now  dvdpdiirwv). — xvi,  90,  at  8'  avdpiOfioi  |  /jlt/Xcov 
XiXid8e$,  apparent  hyperbaton  of  a  partitive  genitive.  But  the 
idyl  is  epic  and  at  8'  may  be  the  true  reading  (v.  1.  ai  re). — 
xxvn,  46,  ra  /SoukoXco  epya,  where  fiovfcoXco  is  generic. — Geni- 
tives of  proper  nouns  are  more  numerous:  I,  19;  II,  8,  21,  62 
(ra  AeXfaSos  Sana,  tho  parts  of  the  body  usually  stand  in  the 
partitive  position),  70,  146,  a  re  $>iXl<7Ta<s  |  fidrvp  tcls  afxas 
avXnrplhos  a  re  MeXtfoO?,3  160.  V,  20,  114;  XVIII,  6. — In  two 
cases  anarthrous  genitives  of  proper  nouns  follow  articular  gov- 
erning nouns  with  the  article  repeated,  i.  e.,  in  the  second  attribu- 
tive position:    II,  74,  rav  ^variSa  tclv  KXea/oto-ra?.4    vii,  10. — 

1  Krueger,  i,  47,  9,  9  ;  Studien,  it,  p.  78.    Kuehner,  §  464,  3. 

2  Apollonius  Syntax,  i,  42,  p.  84,  Bekker. 

3  The  context,  esp.  1.  154,  shows  that,  in  spite  of  the  re ....  re,  one  woman, 
mother  of  both  girls,  is  meant.  Changes  in  the  text  and  assumption  of  a  lacuna 
(Fritzsche)  are  unnecessary.  Parallels  with  similar  repetition  of  the  article 
with  connectives  can  be  cited.  So  Cholmeley  cites  Xen.  Anab.,  m,  117  ;  Plato 
Rep.,  334  E  ;  Ant,,  i,  21  ;  Dem.  De  Cor.,  205  ;  Add  Ant.,  v,  63,  and  Dem.  In 
Meid.,  124,  and  see  Maetzner  to  Ant.,  I,  21. 

4  Fritzsche  (et  al. )  writes  rds  KX.  after  certain  cdd.,  and  notes:  ucongruit 
consuetudini  Theocr.  artic.  personae  designandae  appositus."  But  a  parallel  for 
an  articular  genitive  of  a  proper  noun  in  such  a  position  cannot  be  cited  from 


68  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

Once  the  anarthrous  genitive  of  a  proper  noun  occupies  the  third 
attributive  position  in  conjunction  with  an  adjective :  HI,  45. 

Articular  attributive  genitives  in  a  few  instances  stand  in  the 
first  attributive  position.  Two  of  the  genitives  are  common 
nouns :  x,  52 ;  xxi,  9 ;  three  are  proper  nouns :  xv,  97. 
Epigram,  n  (vn),   1  ;  VI  (xx),   1. 

b.  Partitive  position.  A  dependent  genitive,  articular  !  or 
anarthrous,  preceding  or  following  an  articular  governing  noun,  is 
said  to  stand  in  the  partitive  position.  In  the  case  of  actual 
partitive  genitives  this  is  the  regular  position,  tho  by  hyperbaton 
such  genitives  sometimes  stand  between  the  article  and  the 
governing  noun.2  Except  in  the  case  already  cited  (see  under  a), 
xvi,  90,  Theocritus  observes  this  rule  for  partitives.3 

a.  With  substantivized  adjectives  denoting  a  part,  the  partitive 
genitive  is  anarthrous  in  xv,  139  ;  xvn,  2,  12  ;  xvin,  4  ;  xxiv, 
37,  72  ;  xxv,  216.  Epigram,  iv  (xn,)  2.  Five  of  these  stand  in 
epic  idylls.     It  is  articular  twice  :  I,  20  ;  xxix,  5. 

/3.  With  parts  of  the  body  and  analogous  nouns  the  genitive, 
in  partitive  position,  is  articular,  save  in  xxvi,  20  (epic).  The 
articular  genitive  precedes  :  IV,  15,  44-45  ;  x,  46.  The  genitive 
follows  :  VIII,  76  ;  X,  39,  tclv  Iheav  ras  ap\xovias  (cf.  Kock  to 
Arist.  Birds  993) ;  xv,  33  ;  xxvi,  20  (epic),  %a  \xkv  tclv  rcecfraXdv 
/jLVfcrjo-aro  7ratSo?  ekolaa  (where  fidrvp  fiev  stands  for  ^a  fiiv  tclv 
in  some  cdd.). 

<y.  Examples  are  also  found  in  Theocritus,  as  occasionally  in 
Attic  prose  (esp.  Thucydides, — Kuehner,  §  464,  3  A  1),  where 
purely  attributive  genitives  stand  in  partitive  positions.  In  one 
case  the  genitive  is  articular:  XV,  52;  otherwise  anarthrous: 
V,  1  (?),  73 ;  xiv,  52 ;  xxm,  23-24. 

c.  Omission    of  the  article  with  the  governing  noun,  while  the 

Theocritus,  who  uses  few  articular  adnominal  genitives  of  proper  nouns,  save  with 
nouns  of  relationship.  In  xxvn,  14,  we  have  a  proper  adjective ;  in  xxi,  55,  and 
i,  20,  added  attributives. 

1  Apoll.  Synt.  i,  10,  p.  35,  Bekker. 

2  Krueger,  I,  47,  9,  11. 

3  See  Kallenberg,  Jahresb.  d.  Phil.  Ver.  zu  Berlin  23,  199  and  200  ;  cf.  J.  B. 
1892,  312. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  69 

genitive  is  articular.  Most  cases  of  this  kind  in  Theocritus  can 
be  explained  from  the  character  of  the  governing  noun,  which 
may  be  indefinite,  accompanied  by  an  interrogative  or  indefinite 
pronoun,  a  vocative,  or  a  predicate,  while  the  genitive  is  a  noun 
with  definite  reference  and  hence  is  naturally  articular.  In  a  few 
cases  the  omission  of  the  article  is  poetical. 

a.  The  governing  noun  precedes  :  x,  9,  Tt?  ttoOos  rcav  e/eroOev. 
XXI,  66;  XXIII,  14,  vj3piv  ras  opyas  ;   XXVIII,  23. 

/3.  The  governing  noun  follows :  VI,  10,  a  rot  royv  otcov  hrerat 
<r/co7ro<?  (a-KOTTos  is  subsidiary  predicate),  13,  37;  vin,  49;  xxi, 
2,  55 ;  xxin,  7  ;  xxvn,  14. 

d.  The  partitive  genitive  with  interrogative  and  indefinite  pro- 
nouns. Here  the  article  is  more  often  omitted  in  Theocritus  with 
the  genitive  than  it  is  used.  But  most  of  the  omissions  are  found 
in  epic  idylls,  while  only  one  case  occurs  in  this  group  where  the 
article  is  used  (xvi,  13).  Apollonius  l  states  it  as  a  rule  that  the 
partitive  genitive  after  ti'<?  and  7T(uo?,  unless  it  is  a  pronoun, 
always  has  the  article.  The  following  cases  occur  in  Theocritus 
where  the  genitive  is  articular  :  v,  148  ;  vn,  5  ;  (cf.  Epigram  vn 
(xvi),  4.) — x,  8, 15;  xvi,  13  (epic);  xxi,  44.  Most  of  the  geni- 
tives are  substantivized  words.  Anarthrous  genitives  with  ti?  in 
Doric  idylls  are  only  n,  83,  and  VII,  24. 

e.  Forms  of  the  article,  with  the  noun  unexpressed,  followed  by 
dependent  genitives.  Here  there  is  always  a  familiar  ellipsis  which 
need  not,  if  indeed  it  can,  be  supplied  in  all  cases.  The  most 
common  type  in  Theocritus  is  that  with  neuter  plural  forms  of 
the  article,  designating  property,  actions,  affairs,  etc.  :  II,  76, 
rd  Av/ccovos,  Lykon's  (house,  shop,  garden  or  what  not).2  IV,  23, 
rd  4>u07ea>,  31,  rd  TXavfcas,  rd  Uvppo)  (sc.  /JLeXrj. — Cf.  Arist. 
Birds  919,  Clouds  1365).  v,  112;  vm,  20;  x,  41;  xin,  67 
(epyllion) ;  xxvi,  38  (epic). 

Masculine  and  feminine    forms  of  the  article,  with  nouns  of 


1  Syntax,  I,  37,  p.  76,  1.  12  ff.  Bekker. 

2  Cf.  Herondas,  v,  52,  and  for  parallels  in  Attic,  where  this  form  of  expression 
is  rare,  Dem.,  54,  7,  tQv  HvdoSdpov  ;  43,  62  (p6fios),  ra  rod  &irodav6vros.  Arist. 
Wasps,  1432,  tA  UittAXov.    Lysias,  12,  12,  «Jf  t'  d5e\<f>o0  rod  i/xov. 


70  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

relation  understood,  are  found  as  follows  :  H,  66, 146  ;  HI,  35  (?) ; 
IV,  21;  V,  15;  x,  15;  xiv,  53  (?).x 

14.  The  article  with  possessives  and  genitives  of  personal  and 
reflexive  pronouns. — a.  With  possessives.  The  article  with  nouns 
accompanied  by  possessives,  or  genitives  of  pronouns,  personal, 
reflexive,  or  demonstrative,  may  (1)  distinguish  the  given  object 
from  similar  objects  in  the  possession  of  others  (xv,  18),  or  (2) 
with  deixis  or  anaphora  designate  a  particular  object,  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  person  indicated  by  the  pronoun,  as  distinct  from  other 
objects  of  the  same  kind  in  his  possession  (xxi,  30),  or  (3) 
designate  the  given  object  as  the  only  possession  of  its  kind  (xxi, 
27).  This  last  is  the  (avafyopa)  Kara  fJiovaSiicrjv  kti)(tlv  according 
to  which  Apollonius  and  other  Greek  grammarians  account  for  the 
article  in  this  construction.2  If  there  is  no  such  avafyopd  the 
article  may,  according  to  Apollonius,  be  omitted.  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  this  is  but  one  phase  of  the  article  in  this  form  of 
expression.  Only  one  case  occurs  in  epic  where  the  article  is  used 
(XXII,  59),  in  an  elliptical  expression  :  rr)?  <rri<;  (%a)/?r;?). 

Position.  With  the  exception  of  two  cases,  the  possessive 
occupies  the  normal  position  between  the  article  and  noun,3  the 
first  attributive  position.  The  two  exceptions  are :  v,  108,  rdv 
<f>pay/iov  .  .  .  tov  cl/jlov,  and  xxiii,  36-37,  iv  irpoQvpoHJi  |  rolai 
Teolaiv.  The  first  attributive  position  is  found  :  I,  7 ;  n,  3,  39, 
116,  146,  164;  v,  128,  130;  vi,  22;  vm,  75;  x,  57;  xn,  20 ; 
xiv,  30,  38 ;  xv,  11 ;  xxi,  27,  30 ;  xxiii,  21,  26,  27,  41 ;  xxix, 
6.  The  noun  is  to  be  supplied  from  the  context  in  xv,  18  ; 
xxvii,  59 ;  xxn,  59. 

In  one  passage  the  manuscripts  show  the  possessive  in  the 
predicative  position,  after  the  noun :  xxvii,  58,  rwpurexovov 
7roL7)(Ta<f  i/jibv  pdfcos.  This,  and  two  examples,  cited  for  this 
position  in  classical  Greek,  Soph.  Ai.,  573,4  Eur.  Hippol.,   683, 


lSee  Wendel,  Jahrb.,  Suppl.  26,  1901,  p.  33.     Kaibel,  Comic.  Graec.  Frg.,  I1, 
p.  177,  to  Sophron  frg.  145. 
2  See  introduction. 
8  See  Milden,  o.  c. 
4  See  Jebb's  note. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  71 

have  been  emended  in  various  ways.  The  same  position  is  found 
in  the  next  to  the  last  line  of  Id.  xxvn,  contained  in  MS.  c.  : 1  rdv 
(rvpvyya  redv  (MS.  re(ov). 

In  the  omission  of  the  article  with  possessives  Theocritus  shows 
considerable  freedom.  Of  the  one  hundred  occurrences  of  posses- 
sives (excluding  vocatives  and  predicates,  and  counting  the  refrain 
of  Id.  ii,  but  once)  seventy-two  are  anarthrous.  Of  these,  thirty- 
four  are  found  in  epic  idylls,  and  of  the  remaining  thirty-eight  in 
Doric  and  Aeolic  idylls,  seventeen  stand  in  prepositional  phrases. 

b.  With  genitives  of  pronouns.2  This  use  of  the  article  is 
post-Homeric.3  When  the  article  is  used,  the  genitives  of  per- 
sonal pronouns  and  avrov,  eius,  regularly  take  the  partitive 
position,  while  genitives  of  reflexive  pronouns,  avrov,  ipsius,  and 
aXkrjktov  stand  in  attributive  positions.  When  an  attributive  is 
added,  the  genitives  of  personal  pronouns  and  avrov,  eius,  may 
stand  in  the  attributive  position  before  the  substantive.  There  are 
few  exceptions  to  these  rules  in  Attic,  and  some  of  these  have 
been  removed  by  easy  conjectures.4  Theocritus  follows  the  same 
rules,  offering  but  one  possible  exception  to  the  partitive  position 
of  fiev  in  v,  2  (see  below).  No  examples  with  the  article  are 
found  in  epic. 

a.  With  genitives  of  the  personal  pronouns.5  The  pronoun  pre- 
cedes, and  in  a  few  cases  is  separated  from  the  article  by  interven- 
ing verbs:  n,  69,  75,  81,  87,  93,  99,  105,  111,  117,  123,  129, 
135  (refrain) ;  v,  4,  19,  109  ;  vi,  36 ;  xv,  31,  69  ;  xx,  5  ;  xxm, 
43 ;  xxix,  16  ;  xxx,  9.  The  pronoun  follows,  occasionally 
separated  from  the  noun:  n,  126;  vn,  119;  vin,  15,  63,  82 
(cdd.  rot) ;  x,  36  ;  XI,  55,  70 ;  xv,  71  ;  xxvn,  5.  In  in,  37, 
the  genitive  stands  between  the  noun  and  an  adjective  added  in 
the  third  attributive  position :  6(f>6a\fji6s  fiev  6  Sef uk*  In  V,  2,  to 
fiev  vd/cos,  we  find  the  only  exception  to  the  partitive  position. 

1See  Ziegler,  and  Wilamowitz,  ed.,  and  Textg.,  p.  91,  n.  1. 
2Krueger,  i,  47,  9,  12  ;  n,  47,  9,  3  and  5.     Kuehner,  §  464,  4. 

3  In  the  one  instance  cited  for  Homer,  T.  185.  xa^w  <rev  .  .  .  .  rbv  fivdov 
&Ko6<ras,  <rev  depends  on  anotiaas. 

4  See  Merriam,  note  to  Hdt.,  vi,  30,  7.  * 

5  Only  nev  (Znedev),  and  <T€v  occur. 


72  The  Article  in   Theocritus, 

Few  examples  of  this  attributive  position  are  cited  from  classical 
authors,  and  iu  all  of  them  a  particle  or  attributive  is  added, 
except  Arist.  Lys.,  416,  T/79  jjlov  >yvvai/c6<;  (Meineke  p>ov  t?)?,  others 
>ot).  See  Fuller,  p.  103,  for  other  examples  and  compare 
Herondas,  V,  7,  to  fiev  alfia ;  VI,  41,  ttjv  fiev  yXcocraav.  The 
position  may  be  a  late  growth,  as  Cholmeley  remarks.  In  the  New 
Testament l  an  emphatic  vjjlwv  may  stand  in  the  attributive  position. 
/3.  With  genitives  of  reflexives.  There  is  no  exception  to  the 
regular  attributive  position  in  Theocritus :  I,  92,  rov  avrco  |  awe 
TTLKpov  eptora2 ;  XV,  131  ;   V,  61  ;  XXVii,  13. 

7.  The  genitive  of  the  demonstrative  follows  the  same  rule  :  n,  60. 

8.  The  genitive  of  a  relative  precedes  in  x,  4,  a?  rov  iroha. 
Omission  of  the  article  with  nouns  accompanied  by  genitives  of 

pronouns  is  comparatively  infrequent  in  Theocritus.  Seventeen 
cases  of  omission  occur,  but  of  these,  six  are  in  epic,  and  seven 
others  occur  with  names  of  parts  of  the  body. 

c.  The  poets  frequently  combine  the  dative  with  the  substantive 
as  a  dative  of  possession  3  and  the  dative  of  personal  pronouns  then 
may  stand  between  the  article  and  its  noun.  There  is  much  use 
■of  this  dative  in  Homer.4  In  Herodotus  this  use  and  position  of 
the  dative  is  not  infrequent,  but  this  position  is  also  found  when 
the  dative  is  to  be  taken  with  the  verb.  In  Attic  prose 5  where 
such  a  position  of  datives  of  personal  pronouns  occurs,  the  dative 
is  usually  a  dative  of  possession.  But  when  neither  sense  nor 
position  demand  the  possessive  interpretation,  the  dative  is  to  be 
taken  with  the  verb.  Few  cases  occur  in  Theocritus  where  such 
datives  stand  between  the  article  and  noun,  and  scarcely  one  is 
certainly  a  dative  of  possession  :  in,  1,  ral  8e  p,oc  al7€?  ftoo-Kovrai-, 
IV,  62,  to  tol  yevos ;  VII,  121,  to  rot  koXov  avdos  airoppel.  In 
other  xcases  of  this  position  the  pronoun  certainly  goes  with  the 

'Blass,  N.  T.  Gram.,  p.  171. 

'Cholmeley  (and  Wilaraowitz),  writes  airCo,  ipsius,  ''according  to  epic  usage. 
Monro,  Horn.  Gram.,  §  252."  But  if  avrG>  is  Homeric,  rbv  avrQ>  w.  %p.  is  not 
Homeric  (Monro,  1.  c. ) 

1  Krueger,  11,  48,  12, 

4  Dyroff ,  ' '  Geschichte  des  Pronomen  Reflexivum. ' ' 

5  Krueger,  1,  48,  12,  2. 


The  Article  in   Theocritus.  73 

verb:  vn,  43;  X,  24,  (cf.  vn,  11);  xxix,  22.  Other  positions 
of  the  dative  are  more  frequent  and  in  no  case  is  the  possessive 
construction  demanded  :  i,  146  ;  n,  1  ;  VI,  6  ;  XV,  55  ;  XX,  28, 
(cf.  21,25,  27). 

15.  The  article  with  interrogatives.  In  combination  with  an 
interrogative  and  substantive  the  article  either  points  back  to  an 
object  previously  mentioned,  or  by  prolepsis  to  one  that  is  to  be 
more  closely  defined  in  the  following.1  Theocritus  uses  this  con- 
struction twice,  and  both  times  the  article  points  back  to  an  object 
mentioned  by  another  speaker  :  v,  5,  rav  iroiav  avpiyya,  8,  to 
ttoIov  .  .  .  vdtcos,  both  times  with  contemptuous  reference. 

16.  The  article  with  aWos  and  erepos.  The  article  is  used  with 
a  noun  accompanied  by  aXXos  in  the  first  attributive  position,  as 
a  rule  only  when  the  reference  is  to  the  remainder  of  a  given  whole, 
"the  rest."2  Following  examples  of  the  construction  occur  in 
Theocritus,  none  besides  the  first  attributive  position  being  found  : 
xvin,  17  ;  xxiv,  61  (epic),  rbv  aXXov  .  .  .  iralha  (aXXov  here  = 
erepov) ;  xxvi,  24  (epic).  Omission  of  the  article  with  aXXos 
(aXXoi)  and  a  noun  is  confined  to  epic  idylls.3  With  aXXos  used 
substantively,  the  article  is  found:  xiv,  60;  (xxn,  178  (epic), 
coXXot,  v.  1.  aXXoi;  xxvi,  15  (epic),  aXXai,  vulg.  aXXai)  ; 
XXII,  205,  rbv  aXXov  (—  rbv  erepov),  with  anaphora,  "  that  other." 
With  erepos  the  article  refers  to  a  definite  one  of  two  individuals. 
In  Homer  the  article  is  thus  found  occasionally.4  In  a  generic 
sense  erepos  may  or  may  not  have  the  article.  In  Theocritus  the 
article  is  found  only  with  erepos  used  substantively,  once  in  epic  : 
vn,  36;  vni,  91;  xi,  32;  xn,  14,  (Ionic  lyric);  xxv,  255 
(epic).  Omission  of  the  article  is  confined  to  epic  idylls,  save 
xxix,  15  (Aeolic). 

1  Krueger,  50,  4,  7.     Kuehner,  §  461,  A.  6. 

2Cf.  Apoll.  Synt.,  i,  11,  p.  38,  1.  21  ff.  Bekker ;  Krueger,  I,  50,  4,  9.  Tn  Theo- 
critus occasional  shifting  between  &Wos  and  Zrepos  is  noticeable. 

*The  grammars  tell  us  that  oi  &X\oi  is  found  everywhere  in  Homer,  (Monro,  § 
260,  a,  "passim"),  but  many  of  the  examples  are  disputed,  and  the  schol.  to 
B,  1  says  :  "AAXot]  8n  ZrjvdSoros  ypdcpei  <3\\oi  (or  wXXot).  6  5£  TroirjTrfs  aaw&pdpios 
eMptpei.  Where  Homer  has  ol  dXXoi,  etc.,  demonstrative  interpretation  of  the 
article  may  be  applied,  as  in  the  two  examples  quoted  above  from  epic  idylls. 

4  Kuehner,  §  465,  10. 


74  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

17.  With  eicacrTos  the  article  is  used  by  Theocritus  without  a 
noun,  in  epic,  XX v,  195,  to.  e/caara,  with  anaphora.  "Efcaaros 
occurs  but  once  outside  the  epic  idylls  (xiv,  19),  without  the 
article. 

18.  With  6/caTepos,  afx^xo  and  a^orepo^  nouns  are  generally 
articular  in  Attic  prose,  with  the  pronoun  in  the  predicative 
position.  The  tragic  poets  aud- Herodotus1  show  examples  of  the 
omission  of  the  article.  In  Theocritus  e/cdrepos  does  not  occur. 
"Afujxo,  with  anarthrous  noun,  occurs  twice  in  epic  idylls  :  xxiv, 
109,  <  107  >  ;  xxv,  260.  Elsewhere  it  is  used  substantively, 
without  the  article.  'A^ore/jo?  occurs  once  with  an  articular 
noun,  XI,  70,  tgo?  7ro'Sa?  a/AcfroTepcos  /iev ;  with  an  anarthrous  noun 
only  in  the  epic  xxn,  (13,  30,  130),  and  elsewhere  it  is  used 
substantively  without  the  article. 

19.  With  outo?,  88e,  ty/vo?,  and  eiceivos.  When  ovtos,  88e,  etc., 
are  used  with  a  noun,  the  noun  usually  has  the  article.  It  is, 
however,  not  the  presence  of  the  demonstrative  that  makes  the 
article  necessary.  Demonstratives  point  to  defiuite,  known  objects, 
and,  since  nouns  referring  to  such  objects  are  normally  articular, 
it  follows  that  nouns  accompanied  by  demonstratives  are  normally 
articular.  But,  if  a  noun  by  itself  cannot  or  regularly  does  not 
take  the  article,  it  does  not  take  the  article  because  of  the  presence 
of  the  demonstrative.2  The  relation  of  the  demonstrative  pronouns 
to  the  accompanying  nouns  is  not  that  of  attributives  but  of 
appositives,  and  hence  the  position  which  they  occupy  in  respect 
to  the  article  is  not  attributive,  but  predicative.  In  regard  to  the 
Theocritean  use  of  the  article  with  nouns  accompanied  by  demon- 
stratives, it  may  be  said  that  Attic  usage  is  generally  followed,  with 
occasional  poetic  omissions  of  the  article  which  would  not  be 
permitted   in    prose.     Ameis,  (p.  36),  contents  himself  with  the 

^rist.  Eccl.,  837,  Fuller,  p.  114. 

2  See  Krueger,  I,  50,  11,  19  ff.  —  Kuehner,  §  465,  4.— Fr.  Blass,  Eh.  M.,  xliv, 
1889,  pp.  6-23,  on  otiros  in  Demosthenes,  rev.  A.  J.  P.,  xi,  107. — H.  Kallenberg, 
Jahresb.  des  Phil.  Ver.  zu  Berlin,  xxni,  1897,  pp.  204  ff.,  on  the  article  with 
demonstratives  in  Herodotus. — L.  Herbst,  Philol.  xxxviii,  503 ff.,  6  wSXefxos  85e 
and  68e  6  7r6Xe/xos  in  Thucydides  ;  summarized,  A.  J.  P.,  i,  241. — B.  L.  Gilder- 
sleeve  "Problems  in  Greek  Syntax,"  A.  J.  P.,  xxni,  pp.  8  and  123 ff. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus. 


75 


simple  statement  that  the  article  is  added  and  omitted  with  the 
demonstratives  (and  with  clvtos,  7ra?,  €/uo'?,  cro'?,  eo'?,  ktL)  in  the 
bucolic  poets,  referring  for  particulars  to  the  index  of  these  poets 
which  he  had  begun.1 

a.  outo?,  oSe,  r^vos  and  €/ceti/09,  with  nouns  unaccompanied  by 
attributives,  always  stand  in  the  predicative  position.  The  pronoun 
may  precede  (first  position),  or  follow  the  noun  (second  position). 
Intervening  words  often  separate  the  demonstrative  from  the  noun. 
First  position:  ovto$,  II,  28,  53  ;  V,  102  ;  Yii,  51  ;  VIII,  39  ;  x, 
41,  42,  45;  xv,  44.— S8e,  I,  65  (?) ;  v,  72.  Epigram,  vi  (xx), 
1.— t^w,  ii,  17,  22,  27,  32,  37,  42,  47,  52,  57,  62  ;  iv,  15 ;  v, 
1,  15/16;  vin,  26. — i/celvos  (actios,  Aeolic),  xxvin,  24. — Second 
position :  outo?,'  ii,  59  ;  v,  30,  32  ;  vin,  23 ;  xiv,  4 ;  XXI,  65. 
Epigram,  vn  (xvi),  1. — oSe,  iv,  12;  v,  34,  41;  vn,  31  ;  vtii, 
55  ;  xvin,  15. — tt/i/o?,  ii,  153  ;  v,  117  ;  xv,  8  ;  xvi,  42  (epic)  ; 
xvii,  118  (epic). 

b.  With  nouns  accompanied  by  attributives.  When  the  articular 
noun  is  accompanied  by  an  attributive,  the  demonstrative  may,  as 
in  Attic,  abandon  its  predicative  position,  and  stand  between  the 
adjective  modifier  and  the  noun.     So  :  I,  13,  to  Karavres  tovto 


1 A  few  facts  regarding  the  pronouns  themselves,  as  they  appear  in  Theocritus, 
may  be  of  interest  and  not  without  value.  As  shown  by  the  appended  table,  the 
colorless  oCros  remains  in  the  lead,  but  88e,  and  the  Doric  ttjvos  play  important 
roles,  (10  rijvos  in  the  refrain  of  id.  n),  while  ticeivos  is  unimportant. 


Without  nouns. 

W.  articular  nouns. 

W.  anarthrous  nouns. 

Summary. 

oOtos... 

51  (  5  in  epic). 

23  (none  in  epic). 

15  (  6      in  epic). 

89  (11  in  epic). 

88e 

30  (  8    "    "  ). 

11  (    "     "     "  ). 

27(14      "     M  ). 

68  (22  "     ",   ). 

T7JV0S... 

25  (  2    "    "  ). 

28(2        "     M  ). 

8(noneu     "  ). 

61  (  4  "     "    ). 

iKUVOS. 

8(  6    "    "  ). 

2 (none  "     "  ). 

3(    "     "     "  ). 

3(  6  "     "  ). 

Total.. 

114(21    "    "  ). 

64(2        u     "  ). 

53(20      "     "  ). 

231  (20  "     "    ). 

[t  is  to  be  noted  especially,  that  of  the  cases  of  anarthrous  nouns  accompanied 
by  a  demonstrative,  a  large  percentage  (20  in  53)  are  found  in  epic  idylls  (con- 
fined to  o&tos  and  88e),  while  there  are  only  two  cases  where  the  article  is  used  in 
epic  (xvi,  42  ;  xvn,  118),  both  with  substantivized  adjectives,  and  both  with  the 
Doric  rrjvos.  Interesting  too  is  the  preponderance  of  88e  in  epic  idylls,  and  the 
frequency  of  ttjvos  with  nouns,  in  Doric  idylls. 


76  The  Article  in   Theocritus. 

ye&Xocfrov ;  n,  116  j  v,  101. — xxx,  1. — X,  7  ;  xiv,  26. — Epigram, 
I,  1.  In  all  other  cases  the  demonstrative  remains  in  a  predicative 
position.  The  adjective  may  stand  in  the  first  attributive  position, 
and  the  demonstrative  precede  the  complex  :  iv,  59  ;  v,  17  ;  viii, 
86  ; — or  follow  it :  xv,  34.  The  adjective  may  occupy  the  second 
attributive  position  and  the  demonstrative  precede  the  complex  :  v, 
147  ;  vn,  151.  Epigram,  in  (x),  1  f. — or  stand  between  the  noun 
and  the  following  articular  adjective  :  I,  1/2,  22/23 ;  v,  64/65. 
The  adjective,  finally,  may  stand  in  the  third  attributive  position 
and  the  demonstrative  precede  the  noun  :  n,  30,  oBe  /3o'//./3o?  6 
^aX/eeo?,  or  stand  between  the  noun  and  the  attributive  :  I,  120. 
In  two  cases,  where  the  noun  has  more  than  one  attributive,  the 
article  is  omitted  with  the  first,  which  precedes  the  noun  :  I,  126  f. 
alrrv  re  aa\xa  |  ttjvo  Av/caoviSao,  to  /cat  ficucdpeo-GLv  aynrov ; 
Epigram,  I,  5  f.  tcepabs  rpdryos  outo?  6  i*a\os  |  rep^lvOov  rpcbyow. 
The  omission  of  the  article  before  alirv  and  /cepaos  is  poetical. 

c.  Omission  of  the  article  with  nouns  accompanied  by  ovtos,  68e, 
rrjvos  and  eiceZvos.  As  was  stated  above,  a  noun  which  of  itself 
cannot  or  regularly  does  not  take  the  article,  remains  anarthrous 
when  used  with  a  demonstrative  pronoun.  This  is  the  case,  for 
example,  when  ovtos  (etc.)  is  subject,  the  noun  predicate,  or  when 
the  noun  is  added  as  subsidiary  predicate  to  the  demonstrative  in 
the  accusative  case  (f.  i.  xxin,  21,  35  ;  xxvii,  55).  Besides 
these  constructions,  there  are  a  number  of  cases  where  the  omission 
of  the  article  is  more  or  less  general  in  Attic  Greek.  This  is  true 
1),  in  the  case  of  proper  nouns,  tho  in  Theocritus,  the  only  two 
proper  nouns  used  with  demonstratives  have  the  article  :  V,  17  and 
102 ;  2),  when  the  demonstrative  points  forward  to  a  relative 
clause,  as  in  xvi,  73  (epic)  ;  xxin,  33,  46  ;  xxiv,  84  (epic) ;  3), 
when  the  demonstrative  points  to  an  object  actually  present,  as, 
oSei,  128;  n,  50;  vi,  33;  xxn,  54,  62  (epic);  xxv,  18,  29 
(epic);  xxvii,  49.  Epigram,  n  (vn),  4; — ovto?  ii,  15,  132; 
in,  6  ; — tt)i>o?  vii,  98  ;  4),  when  68e  is  used  with  much  the  same 
force  as  roioaEe:  vn,  125.  Epigram,  in  (x),  3. — Of  the  remain- 
ing twenty-six  cases  in  which  the  article  is  omitted,  and  which 
cannot  be  put  under  these  categories,  twelve  occur  in  epic, 
two  in  the  Ionic  xn  (12,  34),  one  in  Aeolic  (xxix,  14),  one  in 


The  Article  in  Theocritus.  77 

the  Berenike  fragment.  The  ten  cases  remaining  for  Doric  are  : 
ovto<;  ii,  65. — 88e  vii,  83;  xvm,  58. — 1-771/09  1,  36;  11,  84; 
V,  43  ;  vii,  63  ;  XV,  15  ;  XXVII,  40. — e/cetvos  IX,  29  (tceivoiai 
v.  1.  ttjvolo-l).  Evidently  the  number  of  poetic  omissions  of  the 
article  in  Doric  idylls  is  comparatively  small. 

20.  The  demonstrative  adjectives'  TOioOro?,  to  to?,  roioaSe,  roaos, 
roaoorhe,  roao-rjvos  and  ttjXUos  are  regularly  used  by  Theocritus 
without  the  article,  whether  substantively  or  with  nouns.  Of 
fifty-seven  occurrences  of  these  adjectives,  only  fifteen  are  adjec- 
tival, nine  of  them  in  epic  idylls.  Of  the  six  instances  in  Doric 
idylls  only  one  would  in  Attic  Greek  require  the  article,  namely 
XXIII,  1 6,  roaav  (f>\6ya  t<x?  Kvdepeias,  "  the  fire  of  Aphrodite,  so 
great,"  as  just  described.  The  other  occurrences  are :  11,  161  ; 
vii,  149,  153 ;  vin,  8  ;  xvm,  32. 

21.  The  article  with  avros.  Auto?,  "ipse,"  "self,"  as  a  sub- 
stantive pronoun,  if  used  with  a  noun,  stands  in  apposition  with 
the  noun.  Hence  if  the  noun  is  articular,  avrfc  in  this  sense 
stands  in  the  predicative  position.  The  article  is  used  when  the 
noun  refers  to  a  definite,  known  person  or  object.1  The  examples 
of  this  construction  in  Theocritus  are:  IV,  5,  15/16  ;2  V,  14  (?), 
cf.  xxvii,  35. — vin,  80;  x,  19  ;  xi,  12  ;  xxvn,  61. 

Ai/ro'?,  "  idem,"  "  the  same,"  is  an  adjective,  and,  in  conjunction 
with  an  articular  noun,  occupies  an  attributive  position,  usually 
the  first.  In  Attic  Greek,  proper  nouns,  and  common  nouns  used 
as  proper  nouns,  omit  the  article  with  az/ro'9,  "  idem."  In  Theo- 
critus auTo?  is  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  intensive  use 
discussed  above.  Two  cases  only  of  6  avro?  were  found :  xvm, 
22,  SpofjLos  (ovtos  (rare  position)  and  xxvi,  23  (epic),  teal  Avrovoas 
pvOfjibs  (dvtos.     In  xi,  34,  covtos  is  a  doubtful  variant  for  outo?. 

Nouns  with  avros,  "  ipse,"  are  anarthrous  eight  times  outside 
the  epic  idylls.  Of  these,  three  are  cases  of  proper  nouns  :  vii,  5, 
100;  xxx,  31.  The  others  are:  11,  89;  vn,  70,;  xxi,  17; 
xxvn,  63.     Epigram,  v  (xni),  6. 

^rueger,  1,  50,  11,  14-18.     Kuehner,  §  465,  4,  Anm.  6  and  f. 
2avrb.  .  .  .  T&o-Tta,  "  only  her  bones,"  cf.  II,  89,  airrh  .  .  .  3<rrta,  "only  bones." 
For  out6s  =  fxdvos  cf.  iv,  15  ;  v,  85  ;  x,  19  ;  xi,  12  ;  xvni,  12. 


78  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

22.  The  article  with  7ra?,  airas,  (jv\iira%  and  oko<;.1  A  noun 
used  with  7ra?,  etc.,  (as  with  ovtos,  etc.,)  takes  the  article  if  it  is 
normally  articular  without  7ra9.  A  noun  used  with  7ra?  (etc.,)  in 
the  sense  "  whole  "  or  "  all "  takes  the  article,  therefore,  in  Attic 
when  there  is  definite  reference  to  known  objects.  Where  there 
is  no  such  definite  reference,  the  article  may  be  omitted,  but  the 
generic  article  may  also  be  used.  When  7ra?  is  used  indefinitely 
in  the  sense  of  "every,"  the  noun  is  anarthrous.  If  the  noun 
with  7ra?  has  the  article,  two  cases  are  distinguished.  When  7ra9 
(irdvres;)  is  used  attributively,  in  the  first  attributive  position,  the 
whole  is  thought  of  in  contrast  with  its  parts.  When,  on  the 
other  hand,  7ra?  (jrdvTes)  stands  in  the  predicative  position,  it 
merely  adds  a  further  modifier  without  implying  a  contrast  with 
the  parts. 

In  the  attributive  position  7ra?  is  found  but  once  in  Theocritus  : 

XXI,    14,   O    7Ta?    7TO/30?. 

In  the  predicative  position  7ra?  (irdvres)  occurs  as  follows : 
a.  preceding  the  noun  :  xxvn,  33  ;  xxviii,  25 ;  b.  following  the 
noun  :  I,  139  ;  V,  107,  ra  Or^pCa  iravra  (generic)  ;  Vin,  16  ;  XIII, 
67  ;  xxi,  31  ;  xxn,  22  ;  xxiv,  38,  the  last  two  in  epic. 

Without  accompanying  noun  7ra?  may  have  the  article,  individ- 
ual or  generic.  Of  the  cases  found  in  Theocritus  none  stand  in 
epic  idylls.  They  are  :  in,  18,  to  irav,  adverbial ;  cf.  VII,  98,  ra 
nrdvra. — XIV,  50  ;  xviil,  22.  Epigram,  VIII  (xvn),  9.  In  XVI, 
102,  tois  iraai  (epic),  roi<;  is  a  relative,  and  in  xvn,  85  and  xxn, 
99,  (both  epic)  the  article  is  a  substantive  pronoun.  Without  the 
article  7ra?  is  used  in  this  way  thirty-four  times  in  Doric  idylls. 

Omission  of  the  article  with  nouns  accompanied  by  7ra?.  When 
7ra?  ="  every  "  is  used  with  a  noun  the  article  is  omitted  in  Attic. 
So  also  in  Theocritus:  I,  50,  102  ;  vn,  26  ;  xxi,  45 ;  xxv,  53 
(epic).  Besides  these  cases,  there  are  fifty  instances  in  Theocritus 
where  7ra?  is  used  with  anarthrous  nouns.  Of  these,  twenty-nine 
stand  in  epic  idylls,  and  one  in  the  Ionic  xn.  Of  the  twenty 
cases  remaining  for  Doric  idylls  and  epigrams  (mostly  plurals),  the 

1  Krueger,  i,  50,  11,  8 ;  n,  50,  10,  2.  Kuehner,  §  465,  6.  Kallenberg  on  irar 
in  Herodotus,  J.  B.  des  Phil.  Ver.  zu  Berlin,  xxm,  1897,  pp.  2042. 


The  Article  in  Theocritus,  79 

majority  contain  no  definite  reference  and,  hence,  are  naturally 
anarthrous.  Actual  omission  of  the  article  may  be  noted  in  the 
following  instances  :  n,  89,  iraaai  rpix&y  "  all  my  hair ; "  VII, 
109,  tcara  xpoa  iravra,  "  all  thy  skin  ;  "  IX,  33  ;  XI,  31  ;  XIX,  3  ; 
xxiii,  56  ;  xxvn,  33.     Epigram,  n  (vn)  6. 

Nouns  accompanied  by  olttos  and  o-vfiTras  (once,  xn,  7),  are 
always  anarthrous  in  Theocritus,  even  where  there  is  definite 
reference,  as  in  n,  56,  fiev  fieXav  .  .  .  alfia  .  .  .  airav;1  xvii,  41 
(epic) ;  xxn,  86  (epic). 

"O\o?  appears  once  with  an  articular  noun,  in  predicative 
position  :  Epigram,  vn  (xvi),  6,  oXov  rbv  avhpa ;  once  with  an 
anarthrous  noun  :  xxix,  4  (Aeolic),  where  a/co\as  is  a  variant  for 
ov/c  oXas. 

23.  The  article  with  cardinal  numerals  refers  to  definite  objects 
well  known  or  previously  mentioned  :  vi,  22,  rbv  i/xbv  rbv  eva 
y\v/cvv,  cf.  36  and  xi,  53. — xi,  6 ;  xiv,  29 ;  xvin,  19.  Add 
xvi,  90  (epic),  where  the  article  may  be  substantival. — Hence,  the 
article  is  used  in  designating  the  parts  after  a  whole  number  has 
been  mentioned  :  xxvi,  6  (epic),  kol^ov  SvoicaiBe/ca  /3t»/xov?  |  to>? 
T/aeZ?  .  .  .  Tft)?  ivvea. 

Nouns  accompanied  by  ordinals  are  frequently  anarthrous.2  A 
noun  so  used  is  articular  but  once  in  Theocritus  :  I,  3,  /xera  Hdva 
to  Sevrepov  ad\ov  aTroiarj.  Elsewhere  the  article  appears  only 
with  ordinal  numerals  used  substantively,  or  as  adverbial  neuters : 
x,  29  ;  xvn,  75 ;  xvin,  4 ;  xxn,  4 ;  xxv,  240. 

24.  With  superlatives,  as  with  ordinal  numerals,  omission  of  the 
article  is  easy  and  frequent.  With  nouns  expressed,  the  article  is 
used :  vn,  10,  cf.  xxi,  19. — vin,  62 ;  xi,  35  ;  xxiv,  63  (epic). 
Without  accompanying  nouns,  superlatives  with  the  article  are 
found  a,  as  substantives  :  II,  143  ;  VII,  98.  Epigram,  IV  (xn), 
2,  the  last  two  being  appositives ;  b,  as  ab verbs :  vn,  59 ; 
xv,  58  ;  xxiii,  40. 


1  The  only  instance  in  Doric  with  accompanying  noun. 

2  For  Attic  Greek  see  John  Thompson,  CI.  R,  xx,  6,  304. 


80  The  Article  in  Theocritus. 

25.  With  comparatives  the  article  generally  implies  contrast  or 
anaphora.  With  nouns  Theocritus  has  the  following:  xv,  139 
(apposition) ;  xvm,  6  (anaphora  to  1.  1.) ;  xx,  43  (apposition). 
With  comparatives  used  substantively  and  adverbially  we  find  the 
article  in  :  I,  20  ;  v,  71  ;  vm,  17  ;  xxiv,  72  ;  xxvi,  32  (the 
last  two  in  epic). 


OF    , 

UNIV 

OF 


LIFE. 

Winfred  George  Leutner  was  born  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  March 
1,  1879.  He  graduated  from  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve 
University  in  1901.  In  the  fall  of  the  same  year,  he  entered  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University  as  graduate  student  in  Greek,  Latin, 
and  Sanskrit.  In  1903,  he  was  appointed  Fellow  in  Greek,  but 
resigned  before  entering  upon  the  Fellowship,  to  become  instructor 
in  Greek  at  Adelbert  College.  He  resumed  graduate  work  at  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University  as  Fellow  by  Courtesy  in  the  fall  of 
1904. 

He  attended  the  lectures  of  Professors  Gildersleeve,  K.  F. 
Smith,  Bloomfield,  Miller,  and  Wilson,  to  all  of  whom  he  takes 
this  opportunity  to  express  his  indebtedness.  To  Professors 
Gildersleeve  and  Miller  he  is  especially  grateful  for  constant 
inspiration  and  guidance  in  the  prosecution  of  his  principal 
studies. 

May,  1905. 


THIS  Bo°k  is  DUETN  THE 

Book  STAMPED  Bliow  DATE 

Santas''  »»««*y-fa*3;  ™  « 


JM20  1983 

IECC!R.4[g  J  33 


15w-4t'24 


VC  00551 


/ 


